|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:07 am
 |
|
|
 |
First of all, for someone who claims to not be Jewish, you spend an awful lot of time objecting to Judaism and Christianity in such a broad way that you actually are objecting to aspects of all religions, including Wicca and most eclectic neo-pagan systems. This seems very odd.
patience1984 I told myself that nobody who died had ever come back so there was no proof that any of us could be aware of an afterlife and that it was just so people would not be depressed that when you die it is all over.
Then you will make a very poor pagan, as their are dying and reborn gods in most pantheons, so rejecting their existence with rip holes in any pantheon you attempt to approach, and most of them have afterlives which are integral to the cosmology.
Have you considered not being religious, given how hostile you are to mythology?
patience1984 I learned about Thoreau in school and transcendentalism seemed to be the perfect answer. I could believe in the oversoul, thus worshiping nature yet not feel as if I am not practicing int he religion by not having rituals and holidays.
I find it curious that you reject an afterlife but accept a single soul (something brought into Western society by the Judaism and Christianity you reject).
Honestly, it looks like you're seeking existential philosophy more than religio, though. Again, have you considered not being religious?
patience1984 Scientifically an element will be effected by a change you make and soemhow with our free will whenever we do anything (speak, act consciously, act unconsciously, etc.) it creates a change to everything else and all of nature has to react
How are you defining "free will"? 8/
patience1984 I have some faith in this aspect of nature because it seems to occur.
Actually, if you believe something happens because you've observed it and it's scientifically based, that's not faith.
patience1984 I was hoping that anyone who had some insights could tell me if what I currently believe is part of an established specific religion.
You have the soul concept of Judaism and Christianity and you're romanticizing nature, which is also Christian thing in a lot of cases (think Rousseau and many modern New Age movements). Seems like you're closest to a secular Christian with pantheistic leanings and a poor comprehension of philosophy and science. I'd recommend not being religious.
patience1984 I know that when I learned that some Native American tribes believed in complete non violence I was very drawn to that...I think it may be part of Buddhism as well and probably other religions too?
Which Native American tribes? Also, you may want to look into the racism inherent in how western society has used modifications of the beliefs of the tribes it destroyed as a second layer of racism against those tribes. It's a large, long-lasting, and decidedly ugly aspect of Western Culture.
Buddhism has a strong non-violence leaning, since it's focus is non-attachment, but there is a strong cultural streak of self-violence (see self-immolation as a form of protest) which I would hold violates a true concept of non-violence.
patience1984 I don’t like others telling me what days are more imp then others and how to celebrate it.
Then I would recommend you not joining any religion or social group.
patience1984 I don’t think they are fallacious
Read. Learn. Apply.
patience1984 I am fully aware that deities are non-falsifiable…which is why I have made it clear I can not be sure they don’t exist. But I can still make a hypothesis with as much of a case as I can.
Actually, you can't. A basic quality all hypotheses need is to be falsifiable. That's science.
You ask what religion you're closest to; you seem to be closest to an atheist hostile to religion and gods in general seeking existential spirituality which may or may not steal from deliberately damaged and/or mistakenly appropriated cultures.
The way you make quotes that actually function is by nesting them. For example:
[quote=Speaker 1]
[quote=Speaker 2]Speaker 2's words[/quote]
Speaker 1's words[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:21 pm
|
|
|
|
I’ll attempt the advice of the proper way to use the quotes but I don’t really understand so hopefully it will work. Computers are not my forte.
Deoridhe First of all, for someone who claims to not be Jewish, you spend an awful lot of time objecting to Judaism and Christianity in such a broad way that you actually are objecting to aspects of all religions, including Wicca and most eclectic neo-pagan systems. This seems very odd.
I would never have brought up Judaism and Christianity beyond the first post if I had not been asked about it over and over again. The only reason I mentioned it was to say the conflicts I went through in my own mind that led me closer to discovering my own path, which I feel closer to then before but not close enough which is why I want help. When someone asks a question, I answer it. So to me I don’t consider it my will to bring it up a lot. By using the word “claim” you seem to have some doubt in my assertion. That is your right. I don’t think that “object” is the best word to use for what I have been saying. I don’t disprove of those who follow those beliefs. It is just not the path for me. I was just being kept why. I explained why I felt so but I have just as much respect for those people who do believe what I personally don’t. Maybe my personal beliefs do only fall into the few eclectic neo-pagan systems you mentioned…if anything I think that helps me pinpoint where my beliefs may fit in. If I hate the rain and someone else loves the rain for example…neither one of us is wrong and I respect the other’s view even though I disagree with it personally. I even was open enough to say that those god/s my even exist and I could be wrong, that I wasn’t entirely certain. I’m not sure what is so odd about it. What if I had felt that a specific god didn’t exist…would that have changed how odd I seem to you? Either way I don’t view “odd” as anything positive or negative.
patience1984 I told myself that nobody who died had ever come back so there was no proof that any of us could be aware of an afterlife and that it was just so people would not be depressed that when you die it is all over.
Deoridhe Then you will make a very poor pagan, as their are dying and reborn gods in most pantheons, so rejecting their existence with rip holes in any pantheon you attempt to approach, and most of them have afterlives which are integral to the cosmology. Have you considered not being religious, given how hostile you are to mythology?
How does it make me a poor pagan? You said that the “dying and reborn gods” are in “most pantheons” not all. Those people who are in the select few are bad pagans in your opinion? I have considered not being religious and I still consider it but I also have spiritual instincts and unclear religious views which is why I came here. Again I feel you have used the wrong word to describe my feelings. I am not “hostile” to mythology. I find a lot of it beautiful, just probably inaccurate in my opinion.
patience1984 I learned about Thoreau in school and transcendentalism seemed to be the perfect answer. I could believe in the oversoul, thus worshiping nature yet not feel as if I am not practicing in the religion by not having rituals and holidays.
Deoridhe I find it curious that you reject an afterlife but accept a single soul (something brought into Western society by the Judaism and Christianity you reject). Honestly, it looks like you're seeking existential philosophy more than religio, though. Again, have you considered not being religious?
I never said I accept the western idea of a single soul. That is not what the oversoul is, quite the opposite. Philosophy is very important to me and it connects to religion a lot in my case. I already answered the last question just before, but I’ll answer any other questions anyone may have based on that answer.
patience1984 Scientifically an element will be effected by a change you make and soemhow with our free will whenever we do anything (speak, act consciously, act unconsciously, etc.) it creates a change to everything else and all of nature has to react
Deoridhe How are you defining "free will"? 8/
This is the definition that I mean: “The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.”
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
patience1984 I have some faith in this aspect of nature because it seems to occur.
Deoridhe Actually, if you believe something happens because you've observed it and it's scientifically based, that's not faith.
Well maybe I was unclear. That sentence was part of the larger statement I was making in the accompanying sentences. What I was trying to say was that I can’t prove that nature/science was the cause of the start of existence (if there even was a start) but I have faith in it because in my eyes it has proven itself to me in other ways. It has a good track record. If someone typed up a résumé of the jewish god and a résumé of nature, I would hire nature because I can see it’s accomplishments. I hope that is more clear and you see now why I used and mean the word faith.
patience1984 I was hoping that anyone who had some insights could tell me if what I currently believe is part of an established specific religion.
Deoridhe You have the soul concept of Judaism and Christianity…
No I don’t…you thought/think that oversoul and soul are synonymous when they are far from that.
Deoridhe …and you're romanticizing nature, which is also Christian thing in a lot of cases (think Rousseau and many modern New Age movements).
It is much more then romanticizing…it may even be worshiping. Which seems more pagan then Christian considering pagans were appreciative of nature far before Christians even existed.
Deoridhe Seems like you're closest to a secular Christian with pantheistic leanings and a poor comprehension of philosophy and science. I'd recommend not being religious.
It seems like I have been misjudged once again so I’m not sure about the “Christian with pantheistic leanings” part. I’m not sure if Jesus ever even lived and if he did I am almost positive that he is not the son of god or that the new testament is true. I can’t imagine why that would make me Christian at all just because a few ideals may be shared about nature that are also prevalent in many other religions. How do you feel I have a “poor comprehension of philosophy and science” ? I comprehend both pretty well even if I don’t possess all the knowledge I seek form either yet. I’m particular confused about your opinion on my comprehension of philosophy seeing as that is one of my fortes. Some of the best philosophers, of not most, are those who think for themselves. Are you going to say that Spinoza also had a “poor comprehension of philosophy and religion”? I’m curious to understand what your assessment is based on.
patience1984 I know that when I learned that some Native American tribes believed in complete non violence I was very drawn to that...I think it may be part of Buddhism as well and probably other religions too?
Deoridhe Which Native American tribes? Also, you may want to look into the racism inherent in how western society has used modifications of the beliefs of the tribes it destroyed as a second layer of racism against those tribes. It's a large, long-lasting, and decidedly ugly aspect of Western Culture. Buddhism has a strong non-violence leaning, since it's focus is non-attachment, but there is a strong cultural streak of self-violence (see self-immolation as a form of protest) which I would hold violates a true concept of non-violence.
Well one of the things I am confused of about my possible path of scientific pantheism is that if everything is considered holy then is there a non violent belief to it? To me it makes sense that is you worship everything then you wouldn’t want to harm any of it and be responsible for the destruction of something you find holy. So far I have not seen that specifically stated during my research of it. As far as the Native American tribes I learned it in a class in 10th grade and I’d have to do a lot of research to find out which native Americans I learned about specifically.
patience1984 I don’t like others telling me what days are more imp then others and how to celebrate it.
Deoridhe Then I would recommend you not joining any religion or social group.
There are plenty of religions that are specifically open or that have large sects that are very open. Reconstructionist jews are an example. That said, I fail to see why me wanting to make my own choices of how to observe a religion is a reason for me not to pursue a religion or social group.
patience1984 I don’t think they are fallacious
Read. Learn. Apply.
My goal is not to prove that my opinion is fact. All I was doing was saying that I have a belief. Then explained how I came up with my belief. Why do so many people believe I don’t comprehend logical fallacies? I don’t just read things and automatically accept them. I do appreciate some of it and I am still deciding on whether I agree with the notion of logical fallacies….but wither way it should not matter in this case because what I have stated I interpret as falling right into what you’re saying anyway. I have already said this quote…and I hate to repeat myself, but so many people ignore it I feel I have to.
“A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.” It is from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index (a very helpful link Tea gave me.) My premise is that nature/science sustains life in extraordinary quantifiable and theoretical manners in current times and so I conclude that it is most likely to be true that it is the source from which existence and everything else came into being (if there was a beginning at all.) The entire website is about logical fallacies and my premise makes sense according to it. I never said it was fact, just that it was more probable.
patience1984 I am fully aware that deities are non-falsifiable…which is why I have made it clear I can not be sure they don’t exist. But I can still make a hypothesis with as much of a case as I can.
Deoridhe Actually, you can't. A basic quality all hypotheses need is to be falsifiable. That's science.
Umm, your saying that a hypothesis has to be proven wrong to be a hypothesis. That is not true….a hypothesis stays a hypothesis until it is proven. That doesn’t mean that until it is proven it is false unless you have evidence that it is false. Something that can’t be said for my theory. It is just unknown to be true or false. I am doing my best to see if I can bring the hypothesis closer and closer to being closer to true then false. So far it seems very reasonable to me.
Deoridhe You ask what religion you're closest to; you seem to be closest to an atheist hostile to religion and gods in general seeking existential spirituality which may or may not steal from deliberately damaged and/or mistakenly appropriated cultures.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Ethermus Prime I don't feel like sifting though all that, so I'll just address this bit: No. She told you a Hypothesis must be Falsifiable. Meaning it must possess the quality of being able to be proved or disproved. If deities are non-falsifiable, then any "hypothesis" on them is not a hypothesis...as there is no way to test said Hypothesis. It's just a stab in the dark.
When you use the word "hypothesis" it seems you mean in a controlled experiment. I was speaking more about a natural experiment. I feel this clearly explains it: “Much research in several important science disciplines, including economics, political science, geology, paleontology, ecology, meteorology, and astronomy, relies on quasi-experiments. For example, in astronomy it is clearly impossible, when testing the hypothesis "suns are collapsed clouds of hydrogen", to start out with a giant cloud of hydrogen, and then perform the experiment of waiting a few billion years for it to form a sun. However, by observing various clouds of hydrogen in various states of collapse, and other implications of the hypothesis (for example, the presence of various spectral emissions from the light of stars), we can collect data we require to support the hypothesis. An early example of this type of experiment was the first verification in the 1600s that light does not travel from place to place instantaneously, but instead has a measurable speed. Observation of the appearance of the moons of Jupiter were slightly delayed when Jupiter was farther from Earth, as opposed to when Jupiter was closer to Earth; and this phenomenon was used to demonstrate that the difference in the time of appearance of the moons was consistent with a measurable speed of light.” ( Source: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Experimental+science )
I would definitely not call it “just a stab in the dark”…I’m making the most educated guess I can and constantly reevaluating it based on my examinations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:29 pm
|
|
|
|
patience1984 I’ll attempt the advice of the proper way to use the quotes but I don’t really understand so hopefully it will work. Computers are not my forte.
You have to NEST the quotes to make them work. However, I am beginning ot understand why you have such problems with logic; the nesting of quotes is a basic form of logic.
patience1984 Deoridhe Then you will make a very poor pagan, as their are dying and reborn gods in most pantheons, so rejecting their existence with rip holes in any pantheon you attempt to approach, and most of them have afterlives which are integral to the cosmology. Have you considered not being religious, given how hostile you are to mythology? How does it make me a poor pagan? You said that the “dying and reborn gods” are in “most pantheons” not all.
Dying and reborn gods are in most, and afterlives are in all. In other words, you are hostile to two basic parts of religions. Given this, I really don't understand why you are interested in being part of one.
patience1984 Again I feel you have used the wrong word to describe my feelings. I am not “hostile” to mythology. I find a lot of it beautiful, just probably inaccurate in my opinion.
For someone seeking help, you do like to go semantic quickly.
patience1984 I never said I accept the western idea of a single soul. That is not what the oversoul is, quite the opposite.
Expand on this.
patience1984 Deoridhe How are you defining "free will"? 8/ This is the definition that I mean: “The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Unconstrained by external circumstances?
How can something exist without external circumstances?
Gods, this is why the philosophy which comes out of Christianity makes my teeth itch.
patience1984 Deoridhe Actually, if you believe something happens because you've observed it and it's scientifically based, that's not faith. What I was trying to say was that I can’t prove that nature/science was the cause of the start of existence (if there even was a start) but I have faith in it because in my eyes it has proven itself to me in other ways. It has a good track record. If someone typed up a résumé of the jewish god and a résumé of nature, I would hire nature because I can see it’s accomplishments. I hope that is more clear and you see now why I used and mean the word faith.
No, I can't. I think you are unclear in what faith is. The phrasing of "I can’t prove that nature/science was the cause of the start of existence (if there even was a start) but I have faith in it because in my eyes it has proven itself to me in other ways" indicates that you don't have faith because you don't believe, you accept it as the most likely hypothesis, which isn't faith.
patience1984 Deoridhe patience1984 I was hoping that anyone who had some insights could tell me if what I currently believe is part of an established specific religion. You have the soul concept of Judaism and Christianity… No I don’t…you thought/think that oversoul and soul are synonymous when they are far from that.
No, I think that the ocncept of the oversoul was created in the philosophical lines which came out of Christianity, and thus are far closer to that than to anything non-Christian.
patience1984 Deoridhe …and you're romanticizing nature, which is also Christian thing in a lot of cases (think Rousseau and many modern New Age movements). It is much more then romanticizing…it may even be worshiping. Which seems more pagan then Christian considering pagans were appreciative of nature far before Christians even existed.
Worshiping is not an extreme form of romanticism.
patience1984 Deoridhe Seems like you're closest to a secular Christian with pantheistic leanings and a poor comprehension of philosophy and science. I'd recommend not being religious. It seems like I have been misjudged once again so I’m not sure about the “Christian with pantheistic leanings” part.
No, my disagreeing with your self-assessment does not automatically translate to you being misunderstood. "Christian" is a lot broader than you seem to think it is; you are closest to the UU and Quaker end of things, but your assumptions are fundamentally those of Christianity.
patience1984 How do you feel I have a “poor comprehension of philosophy and science” ?
Your understanding of the former is flawed by your irrational dislike of the dominant monotheistic religions of Western culture which leads you to claim that what you believe has no relationship with it. Your understanding of the latter is flaws by both your romanticism of it (and through it nature) and by your not comprehending simply forms of logic (like the nesting of quotes) and basics of science (falsifiability - see below).
patience1984 Some of the best philosophers, of not most, are those who think for themselves.
But you're not thinking for yourself. You are taking basic concepts, misunderstanding them, then acting as if no one has ever thought of them before.
Deoridhe patience1984 I know that when I learned that some Native American tribes believed in complete non violence I was very drawn to that...I think it may be part of Buddhism as well and probably other religions too? Which Native American tribes? Also, you may want to look into the racism inherent in how western society has used modifications of the beliefs of the tribes it destroyed as a second layer of racism against those tribes. It's a large, long-lasting, and decidedly ugly aspect of Western Culture. Buddhism has a strong non-violence leaning, since it's focus is non-attachment, but there is a strong cultural streak of self-violence (see self-immolation as a form of protest) which I would hold violates a true concept of non-violence.
Well one of the things I am confused of about my possible path of scientific pantheism is that if everything is considered holy then is there a non violent belief to it? To me it makes sense that is you worship everything then you wouldn’t want to harm any of it and be responsible for the destruction of something you find holy. So far I have not seen that specifically stated during my research of it.
Of course you haven't; that philosophy runs contrary to observed reality. If nothing should ever be destroyed, then we wouldn't exist.
patience1984 As far as the Native American tribes I learned it in a class in 10th grade and I’d have to do a lot of research to find out which native Americans I learned about specifically.
Yeah, that REALLY should speak for itself. Do you see what it says?
patience1984 Deoridhe patience1984 I don’t like others telling me what days are more imp then others and how to celebrate it. Then I would recommend you not joining any religion or social group. There are plenty of religions that are specifically open or that have large sects that are very open. Reconstructionist jews are an example. That said, I fail to see why me wanting to make my own choices of how to observe a religion is a reason for me not to pursue a religion or social group.
Your words are conflicting again. If you consider reconstructionalist Judaism to be something where no one is told what days are more important or how to celebrate them, then you're either defining those words in some new way I am completely unaware of, or... I'm not sure. 8/
patience1984 I don’t think they are fallacious
Read. Learn. Apply.
My goal is not to prove that my opinion is fact. All I was doing was saying that I have a belief. Then explained how I came up with my belief. Why do so many people believe I don’t comprehend logical fallacies?
Because people point them out to you, you say, "that's not fallacious because it's my opinion," and we all face-palm because most fallacious things are opinions. Fallacies are used to winnow through opinions. Therefore saying something isn't fallacious because it's an opinion shows a profound ignorance of fallacies.
patience1984 Deoridhe patience1984 I am fully aware that deities are non-falsifiable…which is why I have made it clear I can not be sure they don’t exist. But I can still make a hypothesis with as much of a case as I can. Actually, you can't. A basic quality all hypotheses need is to be falsifiable. That's science. Umm, your saying that a hypothesis has to be proven wrong to be a hypothesis.
Ur, no. That's not what falsifiable means. All hypotheses need to have a way to be PROVEN wrong is what falsifiable means. It sets rather sharp and fascinating edges on what science can and should address. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Patience I was hoping that anyone who had some insights could tell me if what I currently believe is part of an established specific religion
It is!
A little birdy once told me...
In the beginning there was limitless light,
In the Ending, this is limitless light,
In the between times, we are the limitless light- Manifest!
The idea of the oversoul, of the unity within enlightenment that trancends
our world, our thoughts and our constructs while being an expression of the divine is known in at least one culture as Ain.
In this world view- Ain is the source of all.
But what is Ain?
Can we as humans say?
Could we ever, with tongues and words and constructs say what Ain is?
What it isn't?
Not really. What we can say about Ain is that the Ain we know is not Ain.
Ain is greater than what we know.
It is nature.
It is mortal. It is immortal.
It is all we experience and that which we have not experienced yet.
Like science- we cannot talk about what we don't know.
So- we talk about what we can know.
Ain decends into what people think of as God.
Or as others would have it:
Will.
It is wisdom.
It is understanding.
It is judgement.
It is mercy.
It is harmony.
It is victory.
It is honor.
It is the foundation of our wildest dreams and thoughts-
It is the atom split, formed and the space between that holds the mystery of knowledge.
It is an imperfect being-
But so are we- and this understanding is a reflection of ourselves upon the god we speak of.
Like fruit hung on a tree, one climbs from branch to branch tasting the fruits.
This religion encourages scientific study of the world around you.
This religion does not ask that you accept extrodinary claims of great supernatural deeds blindly.
This religion does ask that the stories of such be viewed symbolicly-
It does ask that the symbolism be examined and cherished for how it reflects our world.
Consider harm please. Harm happens- bidden or unbidden in life.
Violence is a cause of harm. As is nature. As are natrual laws.
Gravity harms the toddler when they fall and scrape their knee.
Violence is different. Violence has anger. Violence has malace.
Would you begrudge Gravity it's nature and expect no harm?
Or is harm a part of life- while violence, anger, malace are to be avoided-
And the seeds of harm they plant to be strived against?
It is a path that affirms truth in other's understandings within itself.
Critical thinking is important in this path.
Critical thinking would ask questions:
How does one quantify probibility?
Probibility is a numbers game:
But how do we measure that which cannot by definition be measured? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:53 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
