AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-01-13, 14:21   Link #1501
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

science:
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
Notice the difference... equating the two is obfuscation. Yes, they could both be considered "models of reality" -- but the latter evolves based on new evidence. The other is divinely revealed and therefore not subject to revision (though it can die out if it ceases to be relevant to the current situation or it can harm its adherents by preventing evolution to a more successful set of behaviors).
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-13, 16:32   Link #1502
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xrayz0r View Post
Your response is perfectly consistent with what I said, I take it you didn't understand what I meant, not even slightly. What I meant was that your definition of faith really kills the use for the word in the first place, because there really isn't anything in your knowledge that you do know for sure. Same goes for the sun going up, and for your knowledge that your mother is your mother. So you end up with a word that really isn't useful in any kind of context, because suddenly everything becomes faith.

With that in mind, I use the term faith as defined by belief unfounded by evidence. Now, we already know that science is based on some basic assumptions. One, that if a pattern repeats itself it is safe to assume it will remain the same (hence a law), and that a natural law once formulated extends to everywhere else in the universe. Any respectable scientist is aware of this, it's pretty basic and I hope you didn't think you were the only one to ever figure this out when you entered this thread. It's blown this thing entirely out of proportion after I simply commented on a guy who thought religion and science are equal in terms of dependency of faith. They are obviously not, I dare you challenge that.
Those:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xrayz0r View Post
Strong faith toward science? If that were true, it would be just as valid as any other nonsense religion, which is not the case. By definition, science involves no faith. You should be more proud about that.
don't strike me as the words of someone who's understood that science is a humble enterprise. Naturally, scientists can be as proud as any other human beings. But science rests on the belief that what we know is incomplete and maybe false.

Quote:
On the religion topic, pretty much the same thing. You're not arguing my point, you're messing with definitions, and religion suddenly becomes a bunch of other stuff I didn't consider posting my thoughts. You were obviously aware of this. Kind of lame you feel like picking on words rather than ideas. I'll say, if tomorrow the dictionary doesn't have their number #1 definition of religion as this, and Christianity, I shall lay down my argument that being a christian simply because your parents are is pretty ridiculous.
I don't know how it is for you, but around here, religion isn't such a serious subject. If asked, most people - dozens of millions of them - will call themselves catholic. If pressed, they'll confess that the world makes more sense with some kind of creator in it. But mostly, they don't think about it and have better things to do on sundays than go church. They'll certainly sin aplenty.

And yet, they call themselves Christians and Catholics. Because it's the done thing. Their parents did, nearly everyone around them does... Who are you to call such a use of the word "ridiculous"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Notice the difference... equating the two is obfuscation. Yes, they could both be considered "models of reality" -- but the latter evolves based on new evidence. The other is divinely revealed and therefore not subject to revision (though it can die out if it ceases to be relevant to the current situation or it can harm its adherents by preventing evolution to a more successful set of behaviors).
While science's leaps of faith are much smaller than religion's, it doesn't mean that science is completely faith-free. I do acknowledge that there's a qualitative difference between the two: science is always looking for more evidence, while in religion, all the important stuff happened long ago, and all that's left is interpreting it.

But to forget the assumptions one makes... How is that scientific?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-13, 17:26   Link #1503
Xrayz0r
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Those:

don't strike me as the words of someone who's understood that science is a humble enterprise. Naturally, scientists can be as proud as any other human beings. But science rests on the belief that what we know is incomplete and maybe false.

.....

While science's leaps of faith are much smaller than religion's, it doesn't mean that science is completely faith-free. I do acknowledge that there's a qualitative difference between the two: science is always looking for more evidence, while in religion, all the important stuff happened long ago, and all that's left is interpreting it.

But to forget the assumptions one makes... How is that scientific?
You just have to put things into perspective. You cannot say science's leaps of faith are smaller than religion's, these leaps are on a whole different level. Science's leap it right in its basic premise. That premise exists because it applies to the world we occupy and how it makes sense to us. Everything that follows is rock solid, within that framework there's no denying its validity. We happen to be trapped in that framework. Our reasoning power and senses can only take us so far, so science is basically the best we can do. So while we're discussing faith and truth having accepted the reality that we (believe we) occupy, it's very safe for me to say science isn't dependent on faith whereas religion is fully (perhaps now you understand my initial response). That is why religion, whether anyone likes it or not, can only be useful as a set of values. It's not relevant anymore in the interest of truth. Religion exists within the framework in which we are bound to think, and even there it takes giant leaps of faith. Science's leap of faith is of philosophical nature. It cannot be disproved by the same means religion can be, which is the scientific method. This can't happen the other way around. Even if it were to happen, that Jesus would come down here and show him that he really is god, it would be on scientific principles that we would be able to verify that he really is god.

Like you attempted, the only thing that can outrule science is philosophy. A different state of mind altogether, transcending that basic premise. But you can't grasp it. Just like you will fail trying not to think in terms of time, matter, and causality. You can think of their nonexistance as a concept, but you cannot think in terms of them not existing. You have to draw the line somewhere, and the line of faith is where things can't be empirically proven.

Last edited by Xrayz0r; 2009-01-13 at 17:45.
Xrayz0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-13, 17:51   Link #1504
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Rock solid? Explain the term "soft science". You talk about science as it's one and indivisible. As if there is only one scientific method. That's just not so. There are several branches of science, all with various amounts of handwaving. The "scientific method" doesn't really mean the same to an astronomer or a microbiologist. And let's not even get into what science meant 200 or 2000 years ago.

If you want to define science as the state of the art in our knowledge and understanding of the empirical universe - then yes, by definition, it's the best we got. Really, it's right there in the definition. And even then - what's the "state of the art" between the time a scientist has a breakthrough, and the moment he convinces his peers?

But personally, I'm wary of the attitude that says we should trust "science" absolutely. That sees it as some kind of guiding star in the sky. That much trust is, after all, unscientific.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-13, 17:52   Link #1505
buymyf00d
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: California,not American BTW,filipino
Age: 18
I'm kinda suprised alot of Atheist are here.Well basically I have a good respect for Atheist.But I'm a Jehova's Witness.I believe in the father of Jesus.But theres a reason to why I believe.Because there is alot of good examples to improve society.And if everyone can be kind and nice society can move better and better.But that would kinda be a little impossible.But I can see why Atheist people don't believe on god.Because the evidence of a bible doesn't add up.
buymyf00d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-17, 12:27   Link #1506
cloak_and_dagger
Hei aka Li Xiansheng
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kasumigaseki; where contractors dwell.
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by buymyf00d View Post
.But I can see why Atheist people don't believe on god.Because the evidence of a bible doesn't add up.
Please don't take this as a shot at you, but all of the Jehovah's Witnesses I've come across were adamant that their version of the Bible was true. If you think it doesn't add up, what does that say about your belief, which is based upon te very foundation that you question or say has inconsistencies? Again, this is NOT a shot at you, just would like to hear your opinion. I am not an atheist by any means.
cloak_and_dagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-17, 13:45   Link #1507
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Rock solid? Explain the term "soft science". You talk about science as it's one and indivisible. As if there is only one scientific method. That's just not so. There are several branches of science, all with various amounts of handwaving. The "scientific method" doesn't really mean the same to an astronomer or a microbiologist. And let's not even get into what science meant 200 or 2000 years ago.

If you want to define science as the state of the art in our knowledge and understanding of the empirical universe - then yes, by definition, it's the best we got. Really, it's right there in the definition. And even then - what's the "state of the art" between the time a scientist has a breakthrough, and the moment he convinces his peers?

But personally, I'm wary of the attitude that says we should trust "science" absolutely. That sees it as some kind of guiding star in the sky. That much trust is, after all, unscientific.
Are you being asked to trust the scientific process or the models that it constructs to make sense of the data?

"Science" is a reflection of the way the human brain actually works.... your mind creates a working model of whats outside and you modify it as you discover new data. You do not cling to an interpretation that doesn't explain the data input under analysis. Once in a while you throw the model out because it gets too cumbersome. If you don't do that - you are a "broken neural circuit", unable to adapt to new conditions.

It isn't a matter of "trust" (unless you're going to start calling "tentative credibility" = trust). The only "trust" required in this process is that your environment can ever make any sense at all ... if you don't sign up for that then you're toast -- just sit and wait for a tiger to eat you.

Perhaps you've run into too many teachers who didn't understand "science" and the "scientific process" themselves....
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-17, 16:38   Link #1508
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Are you being asked to trust the scientific process or the models that it constructs to make sense of the data?
That's the question, isn't it? Or at least, a question. This discussion started because Zaris said he had a strong faith toward science, Xrayzor answered that science needed no faith and that Zaris should be prouder. I didn't like Xrayzor's attitude. I think it should be left to those who've found the one true religion.

And really, what does it mean to have faith in science? A lot of people believe scientists, but what do they really know of science? I believe in evolution, but I can barely tell a pigeon from a sparrow, so what do Darwin's observations mean to me? We laugh today at the idea of phlogiston or ether. What will our descendants laugh at?

Quote:
"Science" is a reflection of the way the human brain actually works....
Then where did ID come from? Where do religions come from? Why do so many human beings still believe in invisible people?

Science is maybe a reflection of a way the human brain sometimes work.

It's also something that's evolved in its methods. Once upon a time, I was paid to teach kids not to think of mere examples as mathematical proof. And yet, a mere few centuries ago, the greatest minds of their times thought exactly like that.

Quote:
your mind creates a working model of whats outside and you modify it as you discover new data. You do not cling to an interpretation that doesn't explain the data input under analysis.
You do till you find better. How long have people clung to Newtonian physics, despite its limitations?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-17, 16:46   Link #1509
Zmayana
Sebasuchan fangaru
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Send a message via MSN to Zmayana
Was baptized against my will as a kid + was confirmed (or whatever is that called in English) when I had no idea what it was about. (at that time it was just great to get presents from relatives) Now I'm strictly an atheist. Baptizing children and washing their minds should really be forbidden by law. When they are at full age may that be 18 or 21, then they should decide what they want to believe in.
Zmayana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-17, 17:10   Link #1510
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
And really, what does it mean to have faith in science? A lot of people believe scientists, but what do they really know of science? I believe in evolution, but I can barely tell a pigeon from a sparrow, so what do Darwin's observations mean to me? We laugh today at the idea of phlogiston or ether. What will our descendants laugh at?
But see, I don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is simply the best current model to explain the data. Evolutionary theory itself has evolved to deal with new data. People who "believe" in the theory of the day aren't really practicing science. People who understand that its our "best latest" guess come closer to understanding science.

Quote:
Then where did ID come from? Where do religions come from? Why do so many human beings still believe in invisible people?
ID is creationist propaganda in disguise ... the reason neither is science is that they begin with "revealed truths" rather than a collection of data. ID has the intent of reaching a particular conclusion despite claiming to reach that conclusion scientifically. Older religions (pagan, animism, etc) actually come closer to being proto-science since they were trying to explain natural phenomena with a theory.... they used very primitive guesswork in their cause-and-effect models and it worked well enough at the time. If you start with the axiom that all movement, action, and presence is a symptom of *intent* - then it makes a lot of sense to give intent (kami, gods, etc) to all natural phenomenom.
Quote:
Science is maybe a reflection of a way the human brain sometimes work.
No, pick up some works in AI and neuroscience. Constructing internal models to assess and predict the outside environment is *exactly* the way all brains works. Sometimes models go bad -- a brain that ignores new data in order to keep a less-than-functional model is broken. It is unlikely to be successful in its environment (less able to adapt or evolve to new conditions).
Quote:
It's also something that's evolved in its methods. Once upon a time, I was paid to teach kids not to think of mere examples as mathematical proof. And yet, a mere few centuries ago, the greatest minds of their times thought exactly like that.
Don't quite follow you... proof by example is one of the tools in mathematics. Liebnitz and Newton used the same techniques used by the Greeks 2000 years ago in constructing proofs.... got an example? Are you comparing deductive and inductive reasoning?
Quote:
You do till you find better. How long have people clung to Newtonian physics, despite its limitations?
People do not "cling" to Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is still used because it works just fine in daily experience (and saves messing about with quantities that are basically 1 or zero until you get very small or work with velocities near light). Currently we have models of reality that predict phenomena quite well at the small (quantum mechanics) and phenomena at the very fast (Einstein physics) as well as theories that integrate *some* of the natural forces (electromagnetic, nuclear, gravitational). We don't have a set of equations that describe collected or predicted data in *any* situation (Theory of Everything).

"Belief" is to trust in something without necessarily understanding it .. or having no way to validate it.
The whole of science is about being able to validate an explanation or model - even if you yourself don't do it, its doable.

I'm not going to defend some of the "soft" sciences because frankly I consider them to still be 'proto-science' ... (I'll probably infuriate some of their fans here) e.g. paleontology was basically crap science until a few decades ago when experts from other more developed fields started participating (anatomy, engineering, medical physics, computational modeling, etc).

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-01-17 at 17:26.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-18, 08:54   Link #1511
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
But see, I don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is simply the best current model to explain the data. Evolutionary theory itself has evolved to deal with new data.
Best according to criterion I can't pretend to know, dealing with data I haven't researched.

Quote:
People who "believe" in the theory of the day aren't really practicing science.
Well, yes. Which is my point. And let's face it: believing is what most people do. What everyone does on some aspects of science, even if they're the bee's knees in some branch(es) of science.

Quote:
People who understand that its our "best latest" guess come closer to understanding science.
Yeah, and if in my lifetime, we get a new "best latest", I'll be glad to believe that instead. But in the meantime...

Quote:
ID is creationist propaganda in disguise ... the reason neither is science is that they begin with "revealed truths" rather than a collection of data. ID has the intent of reaching a particular conclusion despite claiming to reach that conclusion scientifically. Older religions (pagan, animism, etc) actually come closer to being proto-science since they were trying to explain natural phenomena with a theory.... they used very primitive guesswork in their cause-and-effect models and it worked well enough at the time. If you start with the axiom that all movement, action, and presence is a symptom of *intent* - then it makes a lot of sense to give intent (kami, gods, etc) to all natural phenomenom.
My point was, just because it came out of a human brain doesn't mean it's science.

Quote:
No, pick up some works in AI and neuroscience. Constructing internal models to assess and predict the outside environment is *exactly* the way all brains works. Sometimes models go bad -- a brain that ignores new data in order to keep a less-than-functional model is broken. It is unlikely to be successful in its environment (less able to adapt or evolve to new conditions).
Constructing models isn't enough to make it science, or telling a kid about Santa to explain the presents under the tree phenomenon would be science education.

And religions are doing just fine. There is something to be said for being wrong in large groups. (And before I'm accused of spewing atheistic propaganda: since there's more than one religion, a number of them have to be wrong...)

Quote:
Don't quite follow you... proof by example is one of the tools in mathematics. Liebnitz and Newton used the same techniques used by the Greeks 2000 years ago in constructing proofs.... got an example? Are you comparing deductive and inductive reasoning?
I'm pretty sure they used something like that in triangle superposition, but I can't recall the exact example.

As for what I meant in how wrong it is to use examples as proof... Imagine the following problem: "show that for arbitrary sets A and B, the sets A \setminus B, B \setminus A, and A \intersect B are pairwise disjoint." Imagine the student starting with "Let A = {1,3,5,7} and B = {2,4,6,8}. Then ..."

Quote:
"Belief" is to trust in something without necessarily understanding it .. or having no way to validate it.
The whole of science is about being able to validate an explanation or model - even if you yourself don't do it, its doable.
Which means that while collectively, we indeed know a lot, individually, we have to take a lot on faith.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-18, 10:19   Link #1512
Clarste
Human
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Age: 28
I think "the scientific method" should be distinguished here from the "facts that the scientific method has given us reason to believe." The scientific method cannot be seriously argued against, since its based on the fundamental premise of induction, which its frankly hard to imagine the human brain functioning without. The facts themselves are things that can be believed in, and you'd be lying to yourself if you said that scientists don't believe in the facts they're investigating. Hopefully most of them are willing to edit their beliefs to suit the data rather than the other way around.

Faith is a problem because a good deal of us are not scientists. Most of us get taught the current paradigm and take it on faith that its true because we're too lazy to think about it. Back when I was in high school, my chemistry actually did a very memorable class on this near the beginning of the semester. He dressed up in old fashioned clothes (maybe it was just a hat? I can't remember) and started teaching the class about phlogiston. He explained how burning things releases phlogiston and how that explained the fact that they seem to lose mass after burning, etc etc. He then snuffed a candle by covering it with a glass jar and asked the class to explain why the candle stopped burning. The class, being full of smartasses, repeatedly tried to give explanations in terms of oxygen and how the glass caused the candle to run out of fuel and all that stuff we're expected to know by heart nowadays, and kept getting shot down by the teacher for failing to explain the other aspects of combustion that phlogiston did. Finally, I decided to stand up and say "because the inside of the jar is saturated with phlogiston."

The point of all this wasn't to teach us archaic science, but to get us to realize that despite all the smartasses knowing that oxygen was the "true" answer, none of us had any idea how to disprove phlogiston. Phlogiston was perfectly consistent with all the basic properties of burning that we all knew (before taking a high school chemistry class). In other words, taking scientific knowledge on faith or because of authority is completely useless. Obviously the teacher followed all this up with a series of demonstrations that give us reason to believe in oxygen. The people who believed in phlogiston back then weren't idiots, they just had a model that explained all the phenomena they knew of, and revised it when new experiments proved it incomplete as an explanation. This strikes me as one the best kinds of introductions to science people can have.

On the other hand, most of us are not scientists, and the details of particle physics and whatnot are as esoteric as religious scripture. As long as we don't pretend to understand it though, I don't think the lines between science and religion are at all blurred.

By the way, are we off topic again?
Clarste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-18, 13:38   Link #1513
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Wow, he was a *great* teacher....

And wow... Ahn, we are on totally different channels. What you are saying is correct but it doesn't have anything to do with my points. So I'll just let them both stand...

And yes, we're veering off-topic other than I think a discussion of what constitutes "faith" versus "knowledge" or "faith" versus "testing and exploration" is fairly on-topic.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-20, 10:20   Link #1514
Cosmic Eagle
水銀の蛇
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 永劫回帰
I'm Buddhist and I love my religion.
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-20, 10:31   Link #1515
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by buymyf00d View Post
Atheist people don't believe on god.Because the evidence of a bible doesn't add up.
Not necessarily. Some like me just plain don't care. If God exists or does not, maybe I'll just say "Meh, so what?" and shrug my head.


I'm more interested in your motives for believing in Gods.

Pascal had his, an irrational fear of losing the afterlife.

Here's an essay written by some dude about the issue of what kinds of Gods exist, and which is potent.
Quote:
When dealing with the existence of God, we must be careful to not confuse two separate things as one. What are these two things? Well, the first is the Metaphysical God, which is the God whose existence is defended by men like Aquinas. The second is the Socio-Cultural God, which people worship until today.

The difference between the two is obvious. They are so different that apples and oranges will look like twins compared to them. To understand this, it is helpful if you base the difference on the idea of the God’s potency (or actual ability to act). Can this type of God actually affect this world? Or maybe not.

When we talk about the existence of a Metaphysical God, we encounter 2 major problems. First is that any knowledge about this God is derived from reason. However, knowledge comes from only the senses. Since proofs regarding God’s existence rely on truth-value, reason alone would not substantiate the real existence of this God. For example, the first cause argument which states that everything originates from something and this will eventually lead to God is not much a proof than just a play on words. There may or may not be any cause, but the thing is, such argument is valid only when the causation is sensed. For me to justifiably say that this caused that, I must have seen this caused that. This implies that we cannot really know any definite fact about if God really caused it or not, and whether there is any God to cause anything. Reason cannot give definite facts about God, only logically sound hypotheses; therefore it is useless trying to prove God through reason. Its potency cannot be proven. One might as well stop using it. The Second problem is if such a God exists, we, as humans have no obligation to kneel down before it. There is simply no basis for doing so. To argue that we should worship God because it is God is a fallacy (argument by authority). In short, unless experienced (subjective yeah), any proof of God cannot establish its truth. You simply cannot know it through reason. We cannot know of this God’s existence no matter how hard we try.

If we cannot know God, then who the hell are people worshipping? This brings us to the Socio-Cultural God. The existence of this type of God is undeniable. Throughout history, men have worshipped Gods as varied as themselves. However, there is a fatal problem in dealing with this God. You see, Socio-Cultural Gods are man-made constructs. Because this God is man-made, we can be certain that the potency of this type of God is nil. As products of the mind, they are unable to act independently of it. I cannot imagine the stupidity of expecting your “psychological wet dream” to give you solace. Christian God, Jewish God, Islamic God, Brahman, Odin and Zeus, all of them are just products of our mind. They are who we think they are. Furthermore, such Gods are maintained by society and tradition, but we are not obliged to conform to societal groupthink and tradition. I am implying that we have as much right as the makers of these Gods to create our own Gods, or dispose of the idea entirely.

To conclude, we cannot be certain of any Potent God because 1) We cannot know and 2) We suckered ourselves into our own illusions. Unless proven (which one cannot do), the idea of a potent God that’s able to manipulate our world is a fairy tale.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-20, 12:43   Link #1516
darkoni foever
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Wink

Hi, I don't really know but I belive in GOD
and that GOD is in everyone's heart. LOL


Quote:
GOD IS IN EVERYONE YOU JUST HAVE TO OPEN
YOUR HEART TO FEEL HIS PRESENCE

darkoni foever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-20, 15:08   Link #1517
Gordy Lechance
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
I believe in God, but I also believe every culture's prophet are equally great: they are flesh and blood after all, and can't be everywhere at once. So Buddah, Muhamed and Jesus are all equally valid, because they are serving the same God, just saving different groups of people each.
__________________
This oversized signature has been removed.
Gordy Lechance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-20, 15:56   Link #1518
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordy Lechance View Post
I believe in God, but I also believe every culture's prophet are equally great: they are flesh and blood after all, and can't be everywhere at once. So Buddah, Muhamed and Jesus are all equally valid, because they are serving the same God, just saving different groups of people each.
That's a variation on the "Great Mystery" represented as a diamond with many facets. Each religion can see part of the diamond and some of the facets. But you must get up and walk around to see the diamond in its entirety. Submitting to a particular doctrine exclusively locks you in place and you miss the rest of the diamond. Everyone "sees" the diamond but few are able to see the entire diamond.
The source for that is a bit hard to believe but a very sincere Christian Fundamentalist related that one to me while I was in my 20s... I don't know if he was ever able to resolve his personal dilemma about it.
-----------
The question from the OP is "whats your religion?" ... I'll answer the way I feel at the moment.

I've been exploring the world's religions in depth since I was a teen 35 years ago... in college, though I was majoring in EE & Physics - I probably could have minored in religious studies: my motivation was that I saw great inequities with the religion expressed around me, so I resolved to study its basis and the basis for other beliefs.

Fundamentally, I'm a Skeptic in life, but I find the basic concepts of Shinto (its form of animism on a local basis) prove to map the world I see very well. Coupled with the philosophy and concepts of Buddhism, the two form a fairly complete package in characterizing how I treat the world outside of me. Its often amusing to me as an engineer or scientist that if I express physical processes in terms of animistic behavior, people "get it" better than if I use the trappings of science to describe such things
("Your computer pixies have been fed and tended to, the gremlins have been placated").

However, a lot of the trappings and sect dogmas of either religion I tend to ignore (since often they are simply elements absorbed organically over time)... the rituals and festivals however, help to set the mind in integrating self and universe. Where I part from certain forms of Buddhism is that I don't think *renouncing* sensual input really solves anything, *managing* it is more productive.

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-01-21 at 00:15.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-21, 20:40   Link #1519
klowny
OH NO
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York
Age: 23
I was also baptized when i was a kid, didn't know what being baptized meant until i was about 9. I went to what i call church school and got left back about 3 times and never did the Confirmation. Of course i later i discovered god didn't exist, long story short I'm an Atheist because that's what they called people who don't believe in religion. I feel a little annoyed when someone preaches their religion every Saturday outside my door but even with that i can still manage to get along with people with or without a religion. God from what i can think of gives people hope so that's a little good but you can't always depend on that hope.
klowny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-21, 20:56   Link #1520
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by klowny View Post
i discovered god didn't exist
How so? if it isn't indiscreet to ask.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
not a debate, philosophy, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.