PDA

View Full Version : Your religious views and positions on matters such as God and the meaning of life?


FredWolfLeonardo
08-05-2016, 01:42 PM
Before I speak, I just wanna clear up, I do not intend for this to turn into a flame thread and I only want people to respectfully communicate their views on the matter and if replying to someone else, please don't attack them, just politely state why you agree or disagree with them and move on.

Anyhow, what are your views on these matters? Do you think God and religion are important or unimportant in society today? Are God and religion compatible with science? Should Church be seperate from state? Comment your thoughts down below, I hope there are some interesting discussions :)

Candy Kappa
08-05-2016, 01:48 PM
Religion and politics are no no on the 'Drome.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-05-2016, 01:52 PM
Religion and politics are no no on the 'Drome.

I find that to be a bit of a shame, and I think that if people would treat others with respect in these discussions, these topics would've not been banned.

Candy Kappa
08-05-2016, 01:58 PM
But we don't. The 'Drome is a cesspool of assholes, these threads are just gasoline on the fire.

We should have learned by now with The Volanic Asteroid.

snake
08-05-2016, 02:04 PM
Nope, not doing this. Politics is bad enough, but religion always resorts to name calling and insulting around here

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 02:13 PM
Around here?
Try everywhere.

People are jerks about religion everywhere.
Fanboys will ultimately ruin that which they love, regardless of what it is they love.

snake
08-05-2016, 02:14 PM
Around here?
Try everywhere.

People are jerks about religion everywhere. Fanboys will ultimately ruin that which they love, regardless of what it is they love.
_________________

With the same hatred and sh*t flinging as the Internet? I like to believe people are a little more held back irl

Are you seriously turning this into another fanboy thing? C'mon. We get it, you hate manchildren.

Candy Kappa
08-05-2016, 02:16 PM
I've met Internet-level of hate in real-life when it comes to religious discussion.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 02:18 PM
With the same hatred and sh*t flinging as the Internet? I like to believe people are a little more held back irl

Are you seriously turning this into another fanboy thing? C'mon. We get it, you hate manchildren.

I'm a fanboy.
Fanboy has nothing to do with gender.

And yeah, people are just as unhinged and hate filled wrt religion in meatspace as they are online.

snake
08-05-2016, 02:19 PM
I've met Internet-level of hate in real-life when it comes to religious discussion.

I'm around religious people a lot so maybe that's why I wouldn't hear it, but wow. That sucks.

Man, I must live in the nicest community

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:20 PM
I don't care about religion. It has never been part of my life. I'm not even baptised since my parents are both Agnostic/Atheist.

I don't believe in any Gods and don't think life has really any meaning. Death? I view it is an eternal sleep with no dreaming, which seems kinda boring.

I wish a place like Valhalla was real, however. Would actually make me look forward to death.

I'm around religious people a lot so maybe that's why I wouldn't hear it, but wow. That sucks.

Man, I must live in the nicest community
She must be really unlucky to run into religious douche bags in Norway of all places.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 02:22 PM
I'm around religious people a lot so maybe that's why I wouldn't hear it, but wow. That sucks.

Man, I must live in the nicest community

Toe the line and you'll be fine.
Cross it, and you may need to duck and cover.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:24 PM
I don't recall the last time someone asked me anything religion related. No one cares, I guess.

It's funny how here Brazilian immigrants brought some crazy protestant sects such as Evangelicla and 7 Day Adventist churches. It seems the people who join them are all Brazilian or Africans. Sometimes, as in once a year or so, I'll see Mormons trying to talk to people... and no one gives them any time :lol:

snake
08-05-2016, 02:25 PM
I don't care about religion. It has never been part of my life. I'm not even baptised since my parents are both Agnostic/Atheist.

I don't believe in any Gods and don't think life has really any meaning. Death? I view it is an eternal sleep with no dreaming, which seems kinda boring.

I wish a place like Valhalla was real, however. Would actually make me look forward to death.


She must be really unlucky to run into religious douche bags in Norway of all places.

It's both sides of the spectrum really. I've seen more assholes that are anti-religion online than religious ones. It's like what Cure said, tolerance is key. You just gotta realize people are gonna think what they want.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:27 PM
It's both sides of the spectrum really. I've seen more assholes that are anti-religion online than religious ones. It's like what Cure said, tolerance is key. You just gotta realize people are gonna think what they want.
The douchy online Atheists I see are mostly american. Same for the religious ones. Americans just tend to be loud and vocal about themselves, it seems. The Americas as a whole seem to be more religious than Europe. I mean, you'll find many religious people in Europe, but not on a level as big as you see in places like Brazil and the USA. Here people are usually just religious out of tradition and don't feel like proving it to others.

snake
08-05-2016, 02:29 PM
The douchy online Atheists I see are mostly american. Same for the religious ones. Americans just tend to be loud and vocal about themselves, it seems. The Americas as a whole seem to be more religious than Europe. I mean, you'll find many religious people in Europe, but not on a level as big as you see in places like Brazil and the USA. Here people are usually just religious out of tradition and don't feel like proving it to others.

America is a huge pot of asshole. Gotta love it. :lol:

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:29 PM
America is a huge pot of asshole. Gotta love it.
Well, at least you're self-aware :)

CyberCubed
08-05-2016, 02:30 PM
I have no interest in religion whatsoever

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:31 PM
I have no interest in religion whatsoever
Good. Imagine if you were as passionate about religion as you are about the TMNT and Pokémon. Scary sight...

CyberCubed
08-05-2016, 02:32 PM
Good. Imagine if you were as passionate about religion as you are about the TMNT and Pokémon. Scary sight...

Religious zealots are the worst thing in the world, even worse than political zealots.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:33 PM
Religious zealots are the worst thing in the world, even worse than political zealots.
Religion fanaticism is the worst kind out there since it's hard to prove if there exist gods or not. After all these years we can't still prove that.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-05-2016, 02:36 PM
I haven't stated my own personal beliefs so here I go...

I grew up in a moderately religious household, was the goody good God loving boy who everyone knew and lived like that until about 16, when I began doubting my faith and eventually became atheist, subscribing to a materialist outlook on life.

However, it has been recent that I have decided that atheism is not for me, and I no longer see the reasoning of the position to be sound after my research and insight into religious teachings and their connection to the human condition. I respect all religions, but I usually do not limit myself to one religion. In real life, I go to church, attend Islamic festive and prayer events with family/friends and often sit around with Buddhists and have heartwarming discussions.

IndigoErth
08-05-2016, 02:36 PM
Well, since that topic is frowned upon... when I walk in these doors I'm just the average Turtleist like the rest of you. :trazz::twink:




In real life...
I don't care about religion. It has never been part of my life. I'm not even baptised since my parents are both Agnostic/Atheist.
Same boat.


Was always kind of a 'nature kid,' and that whole feeling connected to nature, universe, what have you... so I suppose you could loosely label that as some vague form of 'spirituality,' for lack of a better term, but that's as far as it goes. Unseen world making/controlling entities, no. Though I'm not entirely closed off to the concept of the paranormal (and see that as being able to exist as an entirely separate thing), however I can't help my strong natural skepticism and can't say I actually believe in such things, even while there are still a few experiences with no logical answer that I continue to wonder about after nearly 20 years.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:37 PM
And for the record, I oughta be fair and say that atheism also has blood on its hands. Look at communism and the Spanish Civil War, per example.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 02:41 PM
I don't think any philosophical school of thought, be it religious or non, has a history without blood on someone's hands. That's just now how people function in an Us vs Them situation.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:43 PM
I don't think any philosophical school of thought, be it religious or non, has a history without blood on someone's hands. That's just now how people function in an Us vs Them situation.
I don't think real life Jediism followers have killed anyone yet. :trazz:

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 02:45 PM
I don't think real life Jediism followers have killed anyone yet. :trazz:

I don't think I've heard of there being any fatalities from the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp either, but...time will tell.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:47 PM
I don't think I've heard of there being any fatalities from the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp either, but...time will tell.
Well, I doubt anyone on Earth actually takes the whole FSM thing seriously.

IndigoErth
08-05-2016, 02:48 PM
Though technically it's individuals, not religion/atheism that did it, and in some cases just using the perspective/belief/philosophy to find a twisted justification.

Generalizing ignores (edit: :lol: ANNOYS) me. As does ignoring history. Christianity isn't innocent, though some like to seem to forget. But was it all Christians, no, just some. Atheism isn't communism, even if some within communism were atheists. Most Muslims are not out to get us, the decent ones far outnumber the nuts. Who else can I add...


I don't think I've heard of there being any fatalities from the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp either, but...time will tell.
Sooner or later there is going to be a pasta recall for something that would make people sick and FSM adherents are going to be pointed at. lol They're going to be expected to publicly condemn the contamination, else be suspected of being a part of it or in support of it.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:49 PM
Though technically it's individuals, not religion/atheism that did it, and in some cases just using the perspective/belief/philosophy to find a twisted justification.

Generalizing ignores me. As does ignoring history. Christianity isn't innocent, though some like to seem to forget. But was it all Christians, no, just some. Atheism isn't communism, even if some within communism were atheists. Most Muslims are not out to get us, the decent ones far outnumber the nuts. Who else can I add...
Communists do tend to be agnostic/atheist but I doubt most agnostics/atheists are communist. Certainly not nowadays where atheism is getting more and more common with younger gens. My parents are both agnostic/atheists and they are not communists nor am I. I know several right wing atheists.

GoldMutant
08-05-2016, 02:51 PM
In before disintegration.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 02:54 PM
Well, I doubt anyone on Earth actually takes the whole FSM thing seriously.

https://media.giphy.com/media/V5lM6OffQXOgg/giphy.gif
HAVE YOU NOT BE BLESSED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE?!11112DAAAJFALASOWQE

Though technically it's individuals, not religion/atheism that did it, and in some cases just using the perspective/belief/philosophy to find a twisted justification.

Generalizing ignores (edit: :lol: ANNOYS) me. As does ignoring history. Christianity isn't innocent, though some like to seem to forget. But was it all Christians, no, just some. Atheism isn't communism, even if some within communism were atheists. Most Muslims are not out to get us, the decent ones far outnumber the nuts. Who else can I add...


I was legitimately surprised to learn that prayer was removed from American schools not because of some sort of Atheist Secular agenda, but because no one could agree on which Christian prayer should be used.


Sooner or later there is going to be a pasta recall for something that would make people sick and FSM adherents are going to be pointed at. lol They're going to be expected to publicly condemn the contamination, else be suspected of being a part of it or in support of it.

QFT.
Ramen.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 02:56 PM
You guys pray in school? And it's mandatory?

snake
08-05-2016, 02:59 PM
You guys pray in school? And it's mandatory?

It's "a moment of silence" now from what I heard. I'm a Catholic school kid. Thankful for it too, because the standards for teaching are a lot higher. No, we don't have nuns :lol:

Prowler
08-05-2016, 03:01 PM
It's "a moment of silence" now from what I heard. I'm a Catholic school kid. Thankful for it too, because the standards for teaching are a lot higher. No, we don't have nuns :lol:
Really? Any reason why the standards for teaching are higher at a Catholic school than at an ordinary one?

Public vs. private education.. here it depends. many private schools just want cash and will inflate your grades just to look good in rankings. Private universities here are a joke. Just diploma factories, really.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 03:02 PM
You guys pray in school? And it's mandatory?

On the books: not anymore.
Off the books: it still happens. It's not supposed to, but it does.

There are invocations at graduation ceremonies, before sporting events, and even before such mundane things like City Council meetings.

I can't speak to Snake's experience, but where I'm from you can make more money at religious/private schools, because they can pay more.
Mostly because they charge admission to go. Those schools also don't require state licences to teach, where as at public schools here not only do you need a Masters Degree in the subject you're going to instruct, but you need to be certified by the state as well.

I think there are moral guidelines that private school teachers have to adhere to as well, which differ by the institution.
For instance, they can claim a religious grounds as a reason to fire someone for being gay, or pregnant during the school year, or cohabitating.
It all depends.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-05-2016, 03:02 PM
You guys pray in school? And it's mandatory?

Yes. Our school did have mandatory but brief Christian prayer in assemblies and before lunch began everyone except for Non-Christians religious believers were obliged to recite a Christian prayer. Alot of Muslim boys had also voluntarily set up one of the rooms for their friday prayers during lunch time.

In general, where I live (New Zealand) public schools still have a level of religious influence in them (in the form of prayers and being given Bibles, outside of the written curriculum of course) that decreases over time until the point of the last years of high school where its practically non existent, despite the high rate of atheism here.

snake
08-05-2016, 03:03 PM
Really? Any reason why the standards for teaching are higher at a Catholic school than at an ordinary one?

Public vs. private education.. here it depends. many private schools just want cash and will inflate your grades just to look good in rankings. Private universities here are a joke. Just diploma factories, really.

The Catholic schools cost $$$ so the teachers have to actually put effort in. I've heard horror stories about the sh*t that goes down in public schools.

Prowler
08-05-2016, 03:05 PM
Some schools offer a class/subject called "Moral and religious education". it is optional and it's offered at both private and public schools from 5th to 9th grade. Dunno if it's still around. I've never signed up for it obviously. Heard it was basically a subject about catholic religion, but seems so pointless considering the kids form more religious families already attended catechism/sunday school.

ToTheNines
08-05-2016, 03:10 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/lXiRoPt9Rkzt7yLYY/giphy.gif

IndigoErth
08-05-2016, 03:14 PM
The Catholic schools cost $$$ so the teachers have to actually put effort in. I've heard horror stories about the sh*t that goes down in public schools.
It really depends on the public school.

My middle school... yes, that qualified as s*** that went down. (By the time my sister attended it though it had apparently changed quite a bit for the better.)

My high school was awesome though, and hopefully still is. Though it was in some way the public equivalent to private. No tuition, but you still had to apply and be accepted.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 03:14 PM
I would love to have had a comparative religion class in school, mostly because I find the subject fascinating, but also because I think it's important to have if you're going to live in the world.

There's a religion professor out of Boston University who would give his freshman Intro to Religion students a religious literacy test on their first day of school.

A lot of people did very badly.

Candy Kappa
08-05-2016, 03:17 PM
When I was attending grade school we still sang prayer before eating lunch, but that was while we still had state church.

At least we didn't have the teacher my dad's uncle had. He forced the kids to tell all the sins they had done before starting class, and the worst ones would get the Spanish rod.

Commenter 42
08-05-2016, 03:19 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/lXiRoPt9Rkzt7yLYY/giphy.gif

Best of the thread.

I like you more and more each day.

Candy Kappa
08-05-2016, 03:36 PM
I'm around religious people a lot so maybe that's why I wouldn't hear it, but wow. That sucks.

Man, I must live in the nicest community

I live in the Bible Belt of a country that have had a state church since 1687 to 2012. So there is a lot of various types of religious people around.

Most you meet are nice, though.

Whatswiththeheadbands?
08-05-2016, 03:45 PM
http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=58727807

CyberCubed
08-05-2016, 03:49 PM
My religion is myself.

snake
08-05-2016, 04:05 PM
My religion is myself.

How many followers does Cubism have again?

Spike Spiegel
08-05-2016, 04:21 PM
I grew up fundamentalist/ Oneness Pentecostal (a cult like, heretical offshoot of Christianity) and am now an agnostic with atheist leanings.

Mostly though, I am in the proverbial closet when it comes to family and friends.

Jester
08-05-2016, 04:24 PM
How many followers does Cubeism have again?

Funny.....

Prowler
08-05-2016, 04:33 PM
Funny.....
Surprised you didn't lock this thread lol

Cubism eh? Well any Picasso fans in the Drome?

CyberCubed
08-05-2016, 04:36 PM
Don't worry, I have no strong feelings about religion one way or the other.

IndigoErth
08-05-2016, 04:46 PM
Cubism eh? Well any Picasso fans in the Drome?
Good, I'm not the only one who immediately thought 'art style.' lol

Any art related to Cubism now has to be in the style of cubism, this is a must. :trazz:

FredWolfLeonardo
08-05-2016, 04:58 PM
Unrelated, but my views are kind of like those of Splinter.

You could argue Splinter is Buddhist but he never openly declares himself as one and he still upholds many values such as having inner peace and always doing good regardless of the end result, a key theme in all religious teachings.

Like Splinter, I uphold many of these values too and I don't oppose any religion, approaching it through acceptance and appreciating the beauty of faith. Sometimes, i watch in awe at church hymns and the Moslem calls to prayer, while meditating like a Buddhist at other times.

Cure
08-05-2016, 06:52 PM
I'm super catholic. Big ups to Jesus and his squad.

AT-Man
08-05-2016, 07:05 PM
If I had a religion, it would be Yog-Sothotery. Meaning of life doesn't exist unless you make it for yourself.

If there are any gods, they are some kind of primal cosmic principles, who don't know what they're doing.

edit: I'm all for worship, though. Somehow I find praising deities soothing and... fun.

plastroncafe
08-05-2016, 08:22 PM
I admit to snickering pretty hard every time I pass the local Catholic parish, with their "Catholics Come Home" sign out front.

Trust me, father. You wouldn't want me back.

ToTheNines
08-05-2016, 08:43 PM
Best of the thread.

I like you more and more each day.

http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380836714i/3129817._SX540_.jpg

FredWolfLeonardo
08-05-2016, 09:13 PM
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked, and that there wasn't much flaming at all. Maybe the mods will allow this to continue as long as the discussion isn't full of abuse.

IndigoErth
08-05-2016, 09:33 PM
Give it time. :trazz: Not to be pessimistic, but ending in a ball of flames seems to be part of the natural life cycle of many forum threads.

snake
08-05-2016, 09:35 PM
Oh you KNOW someone is gonna start something eventually

Jester
08-05-2016, 09:37 PM
Surprised you didn't lock this thread lol

Outside my jurisdiction...

Katie
08-05-2016, 09:44 PM
I was brought up that it was very impolite to discuss religion.

If people ask me, l'm a Christian (Protestant), but I have been to worship with Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, and Jews. The real truth is in the commonalities of all beliefs, not in one specific one.

I strongly believe in a higher power based on very personal experiences. I am not a fundamentalist, I do not believe the Bible is literal, and the sciences are my favorite hobbies. Evolution is real.

Mostly, though, I believe in free will and people are gonna believe whatever they believe. I won't discuss mine unless asked.

Commenter 42
08-05-2016, 10:14 PM
http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380836714i/3129817._SX540_.jpg

Have I told you lately, that nothing else matters?

Have I?

Well then...

http://media.indiatimes.in/media/content/2013/Sep/i-put-the-kxla1a_1379426905_540x540.jpg

the sciences are my favorite hobbies. Evolution is real.

Mostly, though, I believe in free will and people are gonna believe whatever they believe. I won't discuss mine unless asked.

EhJ2Kyb3XbI

FredWolfLeonardo
08-06-2016, 12:21 AM
EhJ2Kyb3XbI

I also believe in free will like Katie, and I think it supports the existence of a higher power, or atleast a non-physical one whom we can connect to via our subjective experience as Katie described, having had personal experiences that strengthen her faith.

Personally, I see the subjective experience that we posses, like thoughts, feelings, emotions and ideas, to support the idea of a higher power who transcends the natural world due to his non physical nature, just like our minds. We might be able to cut up brains or witness electrical signals pulse throughout neurons, but we can't directly see the image of say, a lion that i have thought up in my mind, no matter where we look in the brain, its of a completely different realm which is not the physical world.

Then again, people are bound to have disagreements over my biases, and what I said might be subject to criticism and scrutiny, but thats ok, This is how we learn and grow, through respectful discussion and the sharing of worldviews :)

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 01:41 AM
...

Except free will doesn't exist. We know it doesn't. That was an exerpt from a longer discussion, which can be found here.
uIXGxRZk3G4


It's not my assertion, or my argument that free will doesn't exist; it's a proven fact, like gravity.

We still talk as though it does exist however, like god, and democracy. It's a part of our ideology.
These are comforts to our mind, things we feel we need to believe in. It's like Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Voltaire, of course was a believer, but even he recognized our desires trump rational thought.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-06-2016, 02:33 AM
Except free will doesn't exist. We know it doesn't. That was an exerpt from a longer discussion, which can be found here.

It's not my assertion, or my argument that free will doesn't exist; it's a proven fact, like gravity.

I respectfully disagree.

The way I see it, there is no way of measuring one's subjective experience in the same way that we study the perceived physical world. Lets say we study the brain in order to determine whether free will exists or not.

The problem however that we run into is that no matter how much we try and correlate the firing of neurons to our subjective experience, correlation does not ultimately imply causation.

Even if our subjective experience is the result of the brain, it is not the brain itself. I am imagining a bluebird flying across a beautiful field of sunflowers, can scientists ever find this image anywhere in my brain?

They might be able to see neurons firing up, but is the image itself anywhere to be found in the non-physical form that I see it to be? No, because the image is not physical in any way (just like God), and it is outside the realm of science, which is solely considered with studying the physical world we all observe, nothing less, nothing more.

Similarly, saying that God is not real because of a lack of physical evidence in my opinion is akin to saying that ideas don't exist just because they can't be found in physical form. By this logic too, why would anyone think that others with subjective experiences like ours even exist? You can't physically see anyone else's subjective experience, and all you have to go on is correlating physical expressions with a person's assumed mind, which is a fallacy of implying that correlation equals to causation.

Perhaps I am totally wrong, but this is the best I understand at this stage of my life. Perhaps I will change my beliefs in the future, using my free will :P

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 03:55 AM
:P

First, watch the video, then we can discuss. The folks on the panel are some of the greatest minds working in neuroscience today.

If you'd like to debate their idea's about free will, I'm all for it. Asking questions like:
"I am imagining a bluebird flying across a beautiful field of sunflowers, can scientists ever find this image anywhere in my brain?"

Is sort of nonsense. The image? Like, the .jpg, or the oil painting? Do you mean the video tape or the laser disk? < I can say silly things too.

There isn't any image in your brain, or mine, any more than words are tangible. There may be an electrical sequence that could we could generate
that would produce that image, but so what? And how does your question begin to solve for the question of free will? Does my playstation have free will? My TV?

Again, they've done experiments, that are talked about at length in the video.

Like I said, not my "rule" or argument. It took me by surprise, to be honest.
In fact, there's arguments to be made that you, are not even "in" your brain, let alone "images".
Science is fun.

plastroncafe
08-06-2016, 09:47 AM
Nitpick:

Science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves things.
The Law of Gravity is the Law of Gravity, because it hasn't yet been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. That's why it gets the fancy name and isn't just called the Theory of Gravity. It could stop tomorrow. It's not probable that it'll stop tomorrow, but it's not impossible either.

So yeah, Science doesn't prove facts.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
08-06-2016, 10:04 AM
Wow. Four pages of civil discussion and still going strong. Not what I expected. Good for you, people. As you were.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-06-2016, 11:14 AM
So the gist of the video is that our brain contrrols everything we do and that is "proof" that free will doesn't exist? No, that is the exact WRONG direction to go from that experiment. If OUR OWN brain is controlling our actions and behavuor, then by DEFINITION it is our own free will (mind) in charge! Not some outside power or influence controlling us against our wishes or choice. We CHOOSE what actions we take out of all the possible actions and their outcomes. That is what free will is all about. Whether to turn right or left when we leave the house or whether to leave at all. Even if we decide to get out of bed. Our own thoughts direct these things.

Our brain waves ARE our thoughts and feelings so the idea that this proves there is no free will is ludicrous. These may be some of the "best minds" in the world but even the best minds can still be WRONG. Like hundreds of years ago when most of the world's best minds agreed that the world was flat. Just because some smart people believe a thing based on their experience does not make it true.

On the topic of faith (which itself is a choice and based on one's own freely made decision to follow or not) I am Wiccan, and have been since I graduated high school and left my parents' home. This was after being raised as moderately Church of Christ, and going through phases of being atheist and then agnostic. I even dabbled in Taoism and Buddhism for a brief time. I found my spiritual calling partly by accident and partly out of natural curiosity for learning about all aspects of the world around me. I respect and appreciate all forms of life, and feel connected to nature and the wider universe in ways most people never consider. I also firmly believe in the prime tenet of "if it harms none do as ye will". That is, I feel, the ultimate truth behind all faiths, that they all have one thing in common- the need for a basic code of behavior to guide us.

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 03:12 PM
Nitpick:

Science doesn't prove anything, it only disproves things.


MISCONCEPTION: Science can only disprove ideas.

CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

...

Nitpicking.

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 03:29 PM
So the gist of the video is that our brain contrrols everything we do and that is "proof" that free will doesn't exist? No, that is the exact WRONG direction to go from that experiment. If OUR OWN brain is controlling our actions and behavuor, then by DEFINITION it is our own free will (mind) in charge! Not some outside power or influence controlling us against our wishes or choice. We CHOOSE what actions we take out of all the possible actions and their outcomes. That is what free will is all about. Whether to turn right or left when we leave the house or whether to leave at all. Even if we decide to get out of bed. Our own thoughts direct these things.

Our brain waves ARE our thoughts and feelings so the idea that this proves there is no free will is ludicrous.


Thanks for at least watching some of the video. It's nice to have something to talk about! :)

The argument is, that we are not consciously in control of our actions, but we think we are. We move before we are aware we are moving. At this point, it is very much an open question of what this means, but coupled with other tests, it seems to point to the argument that we aren't driving the bus, and some might even argue, there is no "us" at all.

There's a new theory that the brain doesn't do all the thinking, and, some of our decision making happens, in our guts.

Let's suppose for a moment, that we can agree with what they've said: You are not really in control, and that consciousness is a funny byproduct of our existence, a useful adaptation, some odd runaway selection.

How does that make you feel? Does it scare you?

FredWolfLeonardo
08-06-2016, 06:05 PM
First, watch the video, then we can discuss. The folks on the panel are some of the greatest minds working in neuroscience today.

Get around to watching the whole video today. I'm glad this hasn't turned into a flame war, looks like there's hope for the drome. Hopefully when I'm done, I'll reply to your points and hopefully learn something from you too.

Navin Johnson
08-06-2016, 06:07 PM
I am a Christian, I have faith, I'm good with it

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 06:11 PM
Get around to watching the whole video today. I'm glad this hasn't turned into a flame war, looks like there's hope for the drome. Hopefully when I'm done, I'll reply to your points and hopefully learn something from you too.

Ok cool. I get nasty when people just want to spout their beliefs, without looking at opposing ideas. I'm willing to be civil and openminded if you are. :)

MsMarvelDuckie
08-06-2016, 06:14 PM
Not at all because if we were NOT "driving the bus" then all of human existance would be mindless acts without conscious thought. Which is in itself ridiculous. They based their theory ( and that's ALL it is) on the presupposition that we act without THINKING. Or that the thought itself has nothing to do with the act. I disagree- thought and action are one and the same. I can't type this without THINKING about what I am going to type. That is a decision made by my conscious will BEFORE the act is made. So I'm disproving their idea right now. If I did not consciously consider what goes into my post, it would just be a bunch of meaningless gibberish on a screen- assuming I could type at all, as that also requires a pre-determined thought. And in fact there would be nothing to rype ON, as without free will we would never choose to advance our knowledge and technology, as no one would have the conscious thought to do so! Human history is itself proof of free will. It is made of the choices and actions of people shaping their own world over time. The Holocaust was a product of the free will of a few people responsible for causing those atrocities BY CHOICE. Chew on that for a moment, if you will.

In a more theological sense, free will pertains to whether we as humans are independant of our "creator(s)" whom or whatever that may be. More a question of destiny vs self-determination. In that sense, I believe it is a bit of both. I fully believe that there are some events or moments in our lives that are predetermined. How we choose to approach them and how the outcome ends up is where free will comes in. We can either be on the fatal bus crash or we can be delayed by some unknown twist of fate, depending on what we do leading up to it. Like leaving the house five minutes too late and thus missing the bus- because your mom called at the last minute to say goodbye and talked too long. Thus saving you from getting on, when you have always taken the same bus every day for years..... You could have simply ignored the phone and left. Things like that.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-06-2016, 06:17 PM
Ok cool. I get nasty when people just want to spout their beliefs, without looking at opposing ideas. I'm willing to be civil and openminded if you are. :)

A certain Buddhist teacher was taught me that in order to be at peace with yourself, you must be willing to accept other ideas and not let them affect you personally, even if the ideas include things like us being meat robots or that the belief that we should be unconditionally accepting of others, regardless of how much they don't accept us.

If I mentally resist the contents of the entire video, I will only be harming myself and not allowing myself to understand the ideas and experiments cited throughout the entirety of the video, instead making myself anxious and agitated over them. Through Acceptance comes unconditional peace, and through unconditional peace one connects to God, or at least that is what I believe, but that is another topic of discussion.

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 06:35 PM
Not at all because if we were NOT "driving the bus" then all of human existance would be mindless acts without conscious thought.

Is it not? Look around you. We destroy, it's all we've ever done. The point is, there is no point.

I can't type this without THINKING about what I am going to type.

Re-watch the video. that feeling, that you want to type, comes After the signal to type is sent.
That's the whole point. you are only made aware after the fact, and you view it as the initial impulse.

That's the freaky part. How could you make a decision, after you've made a choice?

snake
08-06-2016, 07:31 PM
I really don't get why everyone loves reducing humanity to insignificant, mindless, programmed robots. Never appealed to me. Same thing with the "EVERYTHING YOU FEEL IS JUST CHEMICALS TELLING YOU TO FEEL THAT WAY" mindset

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
08-06-2016, 07:41 PM
Without having yet watched the video C42 linked, I will say at least that the proposed theory sounds like the bastard child of Chaos Theory and psychology.

Could have some interesting fodder for writing...

Commenter 42
08-06-2016, 10:22 PM
I really don't get why everyone loves reducing humanity to insignificant, mindless, programmed robots. Never appealed to me. Same thing with the "EVERYTHING YOU FEEL IS JUST CHEMICALS TELLING YOU TO FEEL THAT WAY" mindset

The thing about science is, you don't have to like it, or agree with it, for it to be true.

I personally have a big issue with gravity, in that, it keeps me from flying. That's a super piss-off. I also don't like how it breaks my dishes, like all the damned time.

It's not about reducing us to robots, but better understanding what we are.
One of the better examples, in another video I haven't linked, talks about our punitive justice system, and how, if we were to truly be fair and just, knowing what we know, instead of reprimanding the criminal, we'd punish the system that created the criminal, or perhaps the system, and the criminal. Taking it a step further, maybe we don't punish anyone, and instead, mend the part of the system that created the criminal behavior.

Now, sure that's a difficult topic, give the numerous variety of crimes, and vast number committed, but if we really don't have free will, then where does responsibility lie?

Again, if you're like me, the immediate reaction is "what? people shouldn't be held responsible? Rapists and murderers aren't deserving of swift justice?

Our brains say yes... mine and yours, BUT the argument might be, in direct opposition to what we feel, which again, is something we might not be able to trust.

I'm a huge proponent for personal responsibility, and yet, I believe their argument.

My brain and my values, all say otherwise. Crazy.


Without having yet watched the video C42 linked, I will say at least that the proposed theory sounds like the bastard child of Chaos Theory and psychology.

Could have some interesting fodder for writing...

The entire channel is good. You may dislike me, but I have good taste.

ToTheNines
08-07-2016, 07:27 AM
I am the devil.

http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10412&d=1470576419

MsMarvelDuckie
08-07-2016, 08:12 AM
Exactly. Take away the conscious and spiritual aspect of humanity and all you have is an unintelligent animal with no impulse control. We are better than that.

And how do you decide to do something after the signal is sent? That makes no sense. There cannot BE a signal until after you consciously decide to take rhe action! Thought comes first. That is simple logic. Action cannot occur before the mind telks it to. The only actions that occur without thinking are those that are automatic responses. Like breathing. That is all. There are two types of nerve responses for a reason. Higher voluntary acts are made by a conscious decision by the cerebral cortex- where we THINK. Involuntary reflexs are the only ones made without the mind involved. Cmon this is basic biology here.

Katie
08-07-2016, 08:33 AM
Actually, that's not entirely true. Most animals have a sympathetic nervous system which can react without thought. Cats for example rely much mire on the sympathetic nervous system for their actions than thinking through what they are doing. Driven by instinct, as it were.

However, while humans do have a sympathetic nervous system, we evolved the capability for higher thought and have the ability to weigh decisions and imagine consequences. I know I don't act impulsively on anything, in fact peope get angry with me because it sometimes takes me awhile to make a decision. Like a chess game.

Even if that video is right, why would it be scary? Its just how it is. But I do not buy their theory.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-07-2016, 08:50 AM
That was my point as well. Involuntary actions are mostly instinctive. But we are capable of overriding many of them by conscious thought- such as intentionally holding our breath for a predetermined length of time. Basically they are putting the cart before the horse and saying that the body responds to a signal that hasnt even been sent yet, since the thought/idea/choice of taking an action IS the signal being sent! So there is a contradiction right there. I dont buy into this "everything is automatic" line of thinking that tries to reduce all of life to simple chemical and electrical reactions. We are more than that. Heck even a snail is more than that. Remember tbescene in The Fly where they tested the teleporter on the monkey? It had no idea how to put him back together again. It turned him into mush. We are more than the sum of our parts......

Commenter 42
08-07-2016, 10:15 AM
Exactly. Take away the conscious and spiritual aspect of humanity and all you have is an unintelligent animal with no impulse control. We are better than that.

We think we are. It doesn't mean we are. Man is still animal.


And how do you decide to do something after the signal is sent? That makes no sense.

Exactly! but that's what the tests show. We act before we think to act. It's strange.

ToTheNines
08-07-2016, 10:26 AM
I wish Zack Snyder was a member here. He'd set this thread straight.

Commenter 42
08-07-2016, 10:38 AM
I wish Zack Snyder was a member here. He'd set this thread straight.

You always know just what to say to me...

*sigh* Snyder, How I hate thee...

Commenter 42
08-07-2016, 10:48 AM
That was my point as well. Involuntary actions are mostly instinctive. But we are capable of overriding many of them by conscious thought- such as intentionally holding our breath for a predetermined length of time. Basically they are putting the cart before the horse and saying that the body responds to a signal that hasnt even been sent yet, since the thought/idea/choice of taking an action IS the signal being sent! So there is a contradiction right there. I dont buy into this "everything is automatic" line of thinking that tries to reduce all of life to simple chemical and electrical reactions. We are more than that. Heck even a snail is more than that. Remember tbescene in The Fly where they tested the teleporter on the monkey? It had no idea how to put him back together again. It turned him into mush. We are more than the sum of our parts......

Hey, Duckie, not for nothing, but, you do realize the contradiction you've pointed to is obvious to everyone, right? Don't you think, they've gone over this?

These folks are pretty smart.

IndigoErth
08-07-2016, 11:24 AM
However, while humans do have a sympathetic nervous system, we evolved the capability for higher thought and have the ability to weigh decisions and imagine consequences.
Which so many seem to lose touch with so easily these days. It's like we're going backwards.

Upset over something? Even if it's stupid to act out? (i.e. Riot and vandalism in Philly after their team won.) I know, lets form an angry mob and burn down half the town without thought.

Personally I don't get how people can fall into behaving that way. When did the rational conscious mind stop saying "Whoa, wtf are you thinking/doing?"

MsMarvelDuckie
08-07-2016, 01:26 PM
Hey, Duckie, not for nothing, but, you do realize the contradiction you've pointed to is obvious to everyone, right? Don't you think, they've gone over this?

These folks are pretty smart.

Apparently not if they are putting something so obvious completely backwards. And you didn't answer the question(and from what I saw neither did they) how dors action PRECEDE the IDEA of the action? It can't. You can't do something before you ever think of doing it. That is an absurd idea from any angle. Using the typing of post as example again, one does not simply begin doing so without any thought, there has to be INTENT before one can even consider WHAT will be put down. To think it could work the other way around (that one would simply type letters on a screen without any forethought triggering the action) is not only utterly ridiculous, but it borders on insanity. Any conscious act MUST by definition have been considered and decided on BEFORE the act itself- we don't live backward, so how can an act precede the idea that initiates it? That is basically what is being stated and it is dead wrong. Its backwards from any logical way of thinking, and thus is inherently flawed. As smart as those panelists supposedly are, they seem to be outvof tough with reality on some fundamental level to jump to such a conclusion as proof that there is no free will.

As a secondary question, the idea was suggested that this theory brings up whether or not a person is responsible for their own actions if their brain is steering the ship. (And I will mention again that the brain is where conscious thought resides so what ELSE would one expect?) If a person isn't responsible due to lack of conscious will being exerted over their own actions (as they suggest) then who orvwhat IS? The answer is nobody. No matter how you try to slice it, there is no outside force MAKING anyone do anything against their own judgement. This theory borders on "devil made me do it" territory, which is reason enough to dismiss it. It is pseudoscience and nothing more.

plastroncafe
08-07-2016, 08:03 PM
Which so many seem to lose touch with so easily these days. It's like we're going backwards.

Upset over something? Even if it's stupid to act out? (i.e. Riot and vandalism in Philly after their team won.) I know, lets form an angry mob and burn down half the town without thought.

Personally I don't get how people can fall into behaving that way. When did the rational conscious mind stop saying "Whoa, wtf are you thinking/doing?"

It's the adrenaline. Our rational mind doesn't know what to do with the physiological effects of adrenaline. So it looks to outside sources for an explanation.

There have been psychology studies where they've given subjects a shot of adrenaline and then put them in a waiting room with actors instructed to express a certain emotional state.

The test subjects began to mimic the emotional state of what ever actors were in their vicinity.

Subjects who were in a room of people pretending to be sad, became sad.
Angry, became angry.
Happy....etc.

IndigoErth
08-07-2016, 08:47 PM
It's the adrenaline. Our rational mind doesn't know what to do with the physiological effects of adrenaline. So it looks to outside sources for an explanation.

There have been psychology studies where they've given subjects a shot of adrenaline and then put them in a waiting room with actors instructed to express a certain emotional state.

The test subjects began to mimic the emotional state of what ever actors were in their vicinity.

Subjects who were in a room of people pretending to be sad, became sad.
Angry, became angry.
Happy....etc.
That's every interesting. Are there any good videos showing these studies?

plastroncafe
08-07-2016, 09:07 PM
That's every interesting. Are there any good videos showing these studies?

Videos? No, but I think this is the the study we covered in my undergrad psych class:
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/The_Schachter-Singer_Theory_of_Emotion#Empirical_Support

If nothing else, there are some citations for primary sources at the bottom.

A note, it would appear that my exact recollection of the study wasn't 100% accurate.
Only two emotional states were studied: anger and euphoria. No sadness.
My bad. (It's been well over a decade since I studied this...)

IndigoErth
08-07-2016, 10:05 PM
Cool, thanks for the link. :)

CyberCubed
08-07-2016, 10:08 PM
Even though I don't practice religion, I do have a religion, only because my parents had a religion and so on and so forth. But they weren't very religious either so...

IndigoErth
08-07-2016, 10:48 PM
I'm not even entirely sure what we're "supposed to be," or rather what family has tended to be prior, I think maybe Presbyterian?

I've never been religious, nor my parents, my mom's parents never spoke a word about that topic so I can only assume they were no different. My dad's side is pretty evenly split between Christians and atheists. I'm not quite sure how that happened. lol And he was one of seven kids, so there's quite a few relatives on his side so it's not just a few close relatives the divide sits between. Fortunately everyone keeps it pretty civil about that topic and just avoids it at most get togethers.

Commenter 42
08-08-2016, 12:38 AM
It is pseudoscience and nothing more.

Says the Wiccan? Lol, don't be that girl...:lol:
It's a mixed panel, but far more reputable than waving sage in the air,
like you just don't care.

I'll give you the neuro market is saturated, with fakes making up a good number, but this is just the tip of the ice burg. It's generally accepted that free will is bollocks.

I'm not even entirely sure what we're "supposed to be," or rather what family has tended to be prior, I think maybe Presbyterian?

I've never been religious, nor my parents, my mom's parents never spoke a word about that topic so I can only assume they were no different. My dad's side is pretty evenly split between Christians and atheists. I'm not quite sure how that happened. lol And he was one of seven kids, so there's quite a few relatives on his side so it's not just a few close relatives the divide sits between. Fortunately everyone keeps it pretty civil about that topic and just avoids it at most get togethers.

Evidence, at least to me, of why religion doesn't determine morality. I've been on the board for almost 5 years , and in all that time, you've NEVER been rude. On the other hand I'm an ass.
If we both went to church/worshiped/sacrificed virgins to volcanos, We'd still be pretty much the same people.

Good is a word derrived from the word god only; being a kind person requires no supervision or lecture.

_FanhvXO9Pk

FredWolfLeonardo
08-08-2016, 02:01 AM
First, watch the video, then we can discuss. The folks on the panel are some of the greatest minds working in neuroscience today.

Ok, I have watched the entire video, and I have my points to say.

If you'd like to debate their idea's about free will, I'm all for it. Asking questions like:
"I am imagining a bluebird flying across a beautiful field of sunflowers, can scientists ever find this image anywhere in my brain?"

Is sort of nonsense. The image? Like, the .jpg, or the oil painting? Do you mean the video tape or the laser disk? < I can say silly things too.

Why is it nonsense? Just because it cannot be physically measured? That's exactly what I have been trying to tell you, that there are certain things that cannot be measured using the scientific method, such as our consciousness.

Now, you may want to claim that we can indeed measure these things by measuring the electrical signals that pule throughout our brain, but the electrical signals themselves are not the IMMATERIAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs that I experience, they are electrical signals which lack meaning outside of what our immaterial thoughts and imagination give them.

The proper way to investigate MENTAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs would be through MENTAL introspection, an entirely different field of study from science, which concerns itself with perceived objective reality through the repeated tests and observation of PHYSICAL stimuli in order to figure out how the PHYSICAL world works.

There isn't any image in your brain, or mine, any more than words are tangible. There may be an electrical sequence that could we could generate
that would produce that image, but so what? And how does your question begin to solve for the question of free will? Does my playstation have free will? My TV?

Again, they've done experiments, that are talked about at length in the video.

Like I said, not my "rule" or argument. It took me by surprise, to be honest.
In fact, there's arguments to be made that you, are not even "in" your brain, let alone "images".
Science is fun.

1. That is exactly the point. The images in our mind are completely intangible, immaterial and outside the laws of physics which solely concern themselves with the material. Anyone who says that the electrical signals are responsible for these immaterial images has no choice but to commit the fallacy of implying that correlation equals causation, and is also trying to explain the immaterial using science, which is solely concerned with the material.

"And how does your question begin to solve for the question of free will? Does my playstation have free will? My TV?"

It solves the question by talking about my immaterial self which I and you can experience. This immaterial soul is not bound by the laws of physics due to its non physical nature, and is thus exempt from determinism. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in physical determinism, and that any ideas of physical reality being different rest solely in our non-physical mind.

I find the parallel between mind/body and electrical currents and the picture you see on television to be fallacious. Firstly, because the television image is not IMMATERIAL, looking closely at the image on the screen will allow you to see the individual PHYSICAL pixels which are caused by the PHYSICAL currents running across the PHYSICAL currents. So of course, your television and PlayStation don't have free will, as everything about them is physical from (aside from the meaning we assign to them using our non-physical mind), thus they are bound by the laws of cause and effect.

I found it dishonest for one of the speakers to rule out the existence of anything thats not physical due to the lack of evidence, because firstly, they were searching for the immaterial in the wrong places by examining the physical brain, which of course won't show you anything immaterial as it is a physical organ. You look for the immaterial by using your immaterial mind. No matter how much they try, scientists cannot see the immaterial image of the bluebird flying in my head by looking at the electrical currents that run through my physical brain. Physical currents are not the imagined bluebird itself. Also, if one of the speakers bothered to investigate the problem of premium free will which they cited as one of the 3 options on the gas station, they would've been forced to conclude that science cannot answer the immaterial. I found it a cop out to just label the option as "Archaic" and not even attempt to honestly investigate it just because it dwells into a completely different realm that science cannot answer.

"There's arguments to be made that you, are not even "in" your brain, let alone "images".

I agree, I do not believe I am my brain, and/or my body or even inside of them. I believe I am an immaterial soul, independent of my physical body which feels physical sensations via a physical body, It is my mind which interprets the physical body as my own and the world around me, giving meaning to everything. I do not believe the immaterial images I imagine such as bluebirds and gardens, are even in my brain technically, because of their non-physical nature. Being non-physical would make the mind beyond time and space. I guess this makes me a dualist.

Commenter 42
08-08-2016, 03:38 AM
We won't agree. I'm a solid materialist, not a dualist, which Seems to be what you ascribe to.

There's a new article on the brain as a quantum field. I'll find the link and post it.

I'll respond to your other points when it's not so late.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-08-2016, 03:51 AM
We won't agree. I'm a solid materialist, not a dualist, which Seems to be what you ascribe to.

There's a new article on the brain as a quantum field. I'll find the link and post it.

I'll respond to your other points when it's not so late.

No problem :)

Looking forward to the article, and I'm enjoying this discussion. :)

Also, while we are having this discussion, keep in mind I have nothing against you personally, and that the difference in beliefs gives me no reason from not loving others. I dearly apologize if I came off as pushy in my posts that were in response to you and you felt any hurt. I do not intend to hurt you, and I wish you happiness and peace :) Ideas may rise and fall, but there should be no hostility and we should treat everyone with a loving heart. :)

"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." Corinthians 13:4-7

Commenter 42
08-08-2016, 03:56 AM
Aand you didn't answer the question(and from what I saw neither did they) how dors action PRECEDE the IDEA of the action? It can't. You can't do something before you ever think of doing it.
.

An analogy, I suppose might be to imagine you're body as a company. Maybe you've had a boss or two in life, whose so insecure, that unless they say so, nothing gets done. They are also incapable of doing anything directly, because any sort of work is beneath them. They're the King of the castle.

If the workers are to survive, they must work, or the company will fail. So the workers set about working things out to keep the company alive. The boss meanwhile, only sees that the company is successful, and since he's in charge, and nobody else, he takes credit for everything going on, including innovative new developments in various departments.

Something like that. Perhaps consciousness is a useless boss?

MsMarvelDuckie
08-08-2016, 02:22 PM
Says the Wiccan? Lol, don't be that girl...:lol:
It's a mixed panel, but far more reputable than waving sage in the air,
like you just don't care.

I'll give you the neuro market is saturated, with fakes making up a good number, but this is just the tip of the ice burg. It's generally accepted that free will is bollocks.

Evidence, at least to me, of why religion doesn't determine morality. I've been on the board for almost 5 years , and in all that time, you've NEVER been rude. On the other hand I'm an ass.
If we both went to church/worshiped/sacrificed virgins to volcanos, We'd still be pretty much the same people.

Good is a word derrived from the word god only; being a kind person requires no supervision or lecture.

_FanhvXO9Pk


"That girl", huh? Exactly what do you mean by that, other than to mock a spiritual practice you know little about? My faith deals almost exclusively with the natural world and how we and it affect each other. That actually makes me uniquely qualified to study and understand aspects of reality and the universe around us that science has barely even begun to touch, let alone explain. Read the X-Men quote in my sig. It is a perfect statement of what my faith represents. Please don't be "that guy" who resorts to making jokes about something they neither understand nor have studied in any depth. It is most unbecoming.

As to what I believe in, I can assert with confidence that it is based on many experiences which have convinced me beyond any doubt that there is far more to our world than a mere physical universe can ever begin to contain. Reality is more complex than science as we know it can cimprehend at this point. The immaterial and intangible exist all around us, but can be felt at times. I've done it.

Accepted by whom exactly? Not most of the psychologists I've ever read anything by. Funny thing, I've actually read quite a few recent articles on how our brains influence our behavior, from adolescent development up to and including self-destructive or violent behavior. None of them ever so much as suggested that our brain chemistry or neurological impulses are SOLELY responsible or even dominate the majority of our behavior. They are a factor, yes, but hardly the only one. THAT is widely accepted.


Ok, I have watched the entire video, and I have my points to say.

Why is it nonsense? Just because it cannot be physically measured? That's exactly what I have been trying to tell you, that there are certain things that cannot be measured using the scientific method, such as our consciousness.

Now, you may want to claim that we can indeed measure these things by measuring the electrical signals that pule throughout our brain, but the electrical signals themselves are not the IMMATERIAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs that I experience, they are electrical signals which lack meaning outside of what our immaterial thoughts and imagination give them.

The proper way to investigate MENTAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs would be through MENTAL introspection, an entirely different field of study from science, which concerns itself with perceived objective reality through the repeated tests and observation of PHYSICAL stimuli in order to figure out how the PHYSICAL world works.

1. That is exactly the point. The images in our mind are completely intangible, immaterial and outside the laws of physics which solely concern themselves with the material. Anyone who says that the electrical signals are responsible for these immaterial images has no choice but to commit the fallacy of implying that correlation equals causation, and is also trying to explain the immaterial using science, which is solely concerned with the material.

"And how does your question begin to solve for the question of free will? Does my playstation have free will? My TV?"

It solves the question by talking about my immaterial self which I and you can experience. This immaterial soul is not bound by the laws of physics due to its non physical nature, and is thus exempt from determinism. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in physical determinism, and that any ideas of physical reality being different rest solely in our non-physical mind.

I find the parallel between mind/body and electrical currents and the picture you see on television to be fallacious. Firstly, because the television image is not IMMATERIAL, looking closely at the image on the screen will allow you to see the individual PHYSICAL pixels which are caused by the PHYSICAL currents running across the PHYSICAL currents. So of course, your television and PlayStation don't have free will, as everything about them is physical from (aside from the meaning we assign to them using our non-physical mind), thus they are bound by the laws of cause and effect.

I found it dishonest for one of the speakers to rule out the existence of anything thats not physical due to the lack of evidence, because firstly, they were searching for the immaterial in the wrong places by examining the physical brain, which of course won't show you anything immaterial as it is a physical organ. You look for the immaterial by using your immaterial mind. No matter how much they try, scientists cannot see the immaterial image of the bluebird flying in my head by looking at the electrical currents that run through my physical brain. Physical currents are not the imagined bluebird itself. Also, if one of the speakers bothered to investigate the problem of premium free will which they cited as one of the 3 options on the gas station, they would've been forced to conclude that science cannot answer the immaterial. I found it a cop out to just label the option as "Archaic" and not even attempt to honestly investigate it just because it dwells into a completely different realm that science cannot answer.

"There's arguments to be made that you, are not even "in" your brain, let alone "images".

I agree, I do not believe I am my brain, and/or my body or even inside of them. I believe I am an immaterial soul, independent of my physical body which feels physical sensations via a physical body, It is my mind which interprets the physical body as my own and the world around me, giving meaning to everything. I do not believe the immaterial images I imagine such as bluebirds and gardens, are even in my brain technically, because of their non-physical nature. Being non-physical would make the mind beyond time and space. I guess this makes me a dualist.


You made some very good points. Thank you. The mind is more than just neuro-electric pathways firing randomly in the brain. It is also immaterial and intangible like what some refer to as the Astral body. Monks and shamans have known this for thousands of years. We are not just of body but of mind(spirit/soul) as well. This is difficult for many people to understand because it is something that cannot be properly measured or quantified. But it exists. Simply because science caannot yet put a number on it is hardly reason to dismiss it as fallacy. You seem to grasp that quite a bit better than most. I tip my hat to you.


An analogy, I suppose might be to imagine you're body as a company. Maybe you've had a boss or two in life, whose so insecure, that unless they say so, nothing gets done. They are also incapable of doing anything directly, because any sort of work is beneath them. They're the King of the castle.

If the workers are to survive, they must work, or the company will fail. So the workers set about working things out to keep the company alive. The boss meanwhile, only sees that the company is successful, and since he's in charge, and nobody else, he takes credit for everything going on, including innovative new developments in various departments.

Something like that. Perhaps consciousness is a useless boss?


That is actually not a very accurate analogy, as the workers in a company are largely independant of their boss and work will get done with or without his input- often even in SPITE of it! He is only as useful as his input helps or hinders his workers. And consciousness exists both as part of and independantly of the physical brain. That said, the entire body depends in the brain, but likewise IT depends on the rest to function. One cannot exist without the other. It is more of a symbiosis than a boss/worker kind of relationship. Even in lower life forms there is still a "command center" but there too, it can only function if the rest of the body does. This is true even of single cells. Interestingly, this kind of relationship also helps to explain how and why certain phenomena exist that are as yet unexplained by current science. Everything that exists is connected at a very basic level. This is where the idea of the "web of life" comes from. All matter and energy are intertwined. This is both a fundamental law of physics, and of metaphysics as well. The two exist as part of each other and seperately at the same time.

Refractive Reflections
08-08-2016, 03:26 PM
http://67.media.tumblr.com/4a844a5c77bb26fa0903d9666c87107b/tumblr_ml6c5p0ekV1rr91rqo1_500.jpg
And so it begins...

Commenter 42
08-09-2016, 05:09 AM
Nah, we're not fighting. I like Duckie too much for that.

I'd say my analogy is, well, exactly what I meant. We're an organization of cells, working together, for a common goal. I don't consciously tell my blood to carry oxegen, my heart to beat, my lungs to breath. I never think about replacing skin cells or storing fat. For the most part, the body is running on autopilot.

I don't think I can work out the rest of your argument. From all our discussions, you seem to be a dualist as well. It's not thT I don't respect you, but I can't respect anything that requires faith, of any kind. Faith, is illogical, irrational, and to be blunt, irresponsible.

You're still not grasping the enormity of the free will experiment. You're both refuting it with "because I said so" arguments, or "science doesn't know what I know because of my personal experience of...."

If I argued an Alien stopped by my kitchen last night and told me the secrets of the universe, you'd probably think I was nuts. If I then countered with the argument that you can't know what I know, so just take it on faith, you'd hardly be moved.

This is the crux of it. If you've had personal experience, great, but it must be repeatable, on command, testable, to be verifiable.

A thing is not a thing cause I said so.

Katie
08-09-2016, 05:30 AM
If every action and reaction was determined automatically by the brain with no thought by a person, human's brains would not have evolved beyond the base reptile brain.

The reason we have big old cerebellum, and especially a large frontal lobe, is that we have evolved the ability for abstract thought, including decision making and impulse control.

Now granted, the frontal lobe that regulates impulse control is not fully formed until a person is 24 or so, but it still exists.

People are responsible for their decisions.

Commenter 42
08-09-2016, 05:46 AM
Ok, I have watched the entire video, and I have my points to say.



Why is it nonsense? Just because it cannot be physically measured? That's exactly what I have been trying to tell you, that there are certain things that cannot be measured using the scientific method, such as our consciousness.

Now, you may want to claim that we can indeed measure these things by measuring the electrical signals that pule throughout our brain, but the electrical signals themselves are not the IMMATERIAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs that I experience, they are electrical signals which lack meaning outside of what our immaterial thoughts and imagination give them.

The proper way to investigate MENTAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs would be through MENTAL introspection, an entirely different field of study from science, which concerns itself with perceived objective reality through the repeated tests and observation of PHYSICAL stimuli in order to figure out how the PHYSICAL world works.



1. That is exactly the point. The images in our mind are completely intangible, immaterial and outside the laws of physics which solely concern themselves with the material. Anyone who says that the electrical signals are responsible for these immaterial images has no choice but to commit the fallacy of implying that correlation equals causation, and is also trying to explain the immaterial using science, which is solely concerned with the material.

"And how does your question begin to solve for the question of free will? Does my playstation have free will? My TV?"

It solves the question by talking about my immaterial self which I and you can experience. This immaterial soul is not bound by the laws of physics due to its non physical nature, and is thus exempt from determinism. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe in physical determinism, and that any ideas of physical reality being different rest solely in our non-physical mind.

I find the parallel between mind/body and electrical currents and the picture you see on television to be fallacious. Firstly, because the television image is not IMMATERIAL, looking closely at the image on the screen will allow you to see the individual PHYSICAL pixels which are caused by the PHYSICAL currents running across the PHYSICAL currents. So of course, your television and PlayStation don't have free will, as everything about them is physical from (aside from the meaning we assign to them using our non-physical mind), thus they are bound by the laws of cause and effect.

I found it dishonest for one of the speakers to rule out the existence of anything thats not physical due to the lack of evidence, because firstly, they were searching for the immaterial in the wrong places by examining the physical brain, which of course won't show you anything immaterial as it is a physical organ. You look for the immaterial by using your immaterial mind. No matter how much they try, scientists cannot see the immaterial image of the bluebird flying in my head by looking at the electrical currents that run through my physical brain. Physical currents are not the imagined bluebird itself. Also, if one of the speakers bothered to investigate the problem of premium free will which they cited as one of the 3 options on the gas station, they would've been forced to conclude that science cannot answer the immaterial. I found it a cop out to just label the option as "Archaic" and not even attempt to honestly investigate it just because it dwells into a completely different realm that science cannot answer.

"There's arguments to be made that you, are not even "in" your brain, let alone "images".

I agree, I do not believe I am my brain, and/or my body or even inside of them. I believe I am an immaterial soul, independent of my physical body which feels physical sensations via a physical body, It is my mind which interprets the physical body as my own and the world around me, giving meaning to everything. I do not believe the immaterial images I imagine such as bluebirds and gardens, are even in my brain technically, because of their non-physical nature. Being non-physical would make the mind beyond time and space. I guess this makes me a dualist.

Yeah, I wrote a whole huge response, and the iPad promptly died.

Basically, I need you to better explain what you mean by immaterial.
It sounds suspiciously like you're arguing spirituality is the only path to knowledge.

That's a non starter.

Commenter 42
08-09-2016, 05:53 AM
If every action and reaction was determined automatically by the brain with no thought by a person, human's brains would not have evolved beyond the base reptile brain.

The reason we have big old cerebellum, and especially a large frontal lobe, is that we have evolved the ability for abstract thought, including decision making and impulse control.

Now granted, the frontal lobe that regulates impulse control is not fully formed until a person is 24 or so, but it still exists.

People are responsible for their decisions.

Right, except these guys say otherwise. They're also not the only ones

BubblyShell22
08-09-2016, 08:48 AM
Yeah, I have a feeling this thread will be closed soon so here I am before it is.

I believe we all have free will to decide what we want to do in life and that our choices shape who we are and what happens to us. I don't believe that anything in life is predetermined or decided for us because I don't like the idea of us being mindless puppets under the control of someone else.

As for our functions in our body, they are all controlled by the brain which sends signals to all of our organs telling them to function. That has nothing to do with free will as free will is designed by our conscious decisions to do things and make decisions. Yes, the brain may send a signal, but we are the ones deciding whether to do whatever action we deem necessary.

For the record, I'm a former Catholic turned atheist and I'm pretty happy with it. As long as others respect me and my beliefs, I'll respect theirs.

plastroncafe
08-09-2016, 10:13 AM
Never respect beliefs.
Always respect the people who have them, unless they have have proven themselves to be unworthy of respect.

Katie
08-09-2016, 11:06 AM
Right, except these guys say otherwise. They're also not the only ones

I have been unable to locate multiple scientific studied to back this. Any different sources from the video or from the guys in the video? I mean, lets see the JAMA and psychology guys weigh in....multiple unrelated neurologists.....anything. All I see is a bunch of philisophical debate. I need actual science.

Just cause these guys are have debated a theory does not make their theory right. Yes, the sympathetic nervous system exists, as dies the human ability for abstract thought.

Show me multiple unrelated, cross dicipline studies that prove this theory. I don't buy it. At all.

Commenter 42
08-09-2016, 12:26 PM
I have been unable to locate multiple scientific studied to back this. Any different sources from the video or from the guys in the video? I mean, lets see the JAMA and psychology guys weigh in....multiple unrelated neurologists.....anything. All I see is a bunch of philisophical debate. I need actual science.

Just cause these guys are have debated a theory does not make their theory right. Yes, the sympathetic nervous system exists, as dies the human ability for abstract thought.

Show me multiple unrelated, cross dicipline studies that prove this theory. I don't buy it. At all.

I'm not surprised, most people don't. I'll find the articles and videos I meant o post last night.

Why close the thread? Seems to still be a civilized discussion, more than ghostbusters or Suicide Squad.

BubblyShell22
08-09-2016, 02:22 PM
Never respect beliefs.
Always respect the people who have them, unless they have have proven themselves to be unworthy of respect.

Sorry, but that makes no sense in the way you said it. I respect the beliefs of others as long as their beliefs are not hurting others in any way.

Jephael
08-09-2016, 03:38 PM
vNJcG8XYusE

That is all!!!

Commenter 42
08-09-2016, 03:48 PM
Sorry, but that makes no sense in the way you said it. I respect the beliefs of others as long as their beliefs are not hurting others in any way.


I don't often agree with with pc, but, here, she's right.

I don't respect the supernatural, I do have a lot of respect for Duckie, PC, Cylon, FredWolfLeo, 2da9s*; most folks here, even if I completely disagree with their views.
I actually respect folks more when they can sufficiently and succinctly argue their opinion.

Then again, simply by arguing with you, I've strengthened your resolve to shore up your own views. All of us are have a confirmation bias, because my proposition is seemingly, to horrible to believe.

This is the grand joke of existence, the willingness to look for meaning where there i none, and to believe that there's a meaning to causality.

It's interesting to me that I'm the only nihilist in the room, outside of cubed, of course.

BubblyShell22
08-09-2016, 03:49 PM
Whatever. To each their own.

ToTheNines
08-09-2016, 06:36 PM
I'd say I'm a nihilist, too. I'd be more active in this thread if I busted out the laptop, but I normally stick to drunkenly swiping on my smart phone and there's no sense in half assing a debate as high brow as this.

Back to the movie/tv section with me.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
08-09-2016, 06:43 PM
I've already argued and rethought and reevaluated my own beliefs in the last few years and found it all exhausting. I've been curious enough to pop in and look around, but I'm sitting this one out. You guys go for it.

Bry
08-09-2016, 07:14 PM
But we don't. The 'Drome is a cesspool of assholes, these threads are just gasoline on the fire.

We should have learned by now with The Volanic Asteroid.

There's room for "A Cesspool of Assholes" up by the banner, right? :tlol:

I wish a place like Valhalla was real, however. Would actually make me look forward to death.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/73c619b84679b590a2b3b5b0374ce74f/tumblr_nqt40yYA831qhdwy7o2_540.gif

Religious zealots are the worst thing in the world, even worse than political zealots.

I dunno, "nerd culture" zealots are giving them a run for their money these days. :twink:

snake
08-09-2016, 07:42 PM
Nihilism? Too exhausting man.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-09-2016, 09:43 PM
Nah, we're not fighting. I like Duckie too much for that.

I'd say my analogy is, well, exactly what I meant. We're an organization of cells, working together, for a common goal. I don't consciously tell my blood to carry oxegen, my heart to beat, my lungs to breath. I never think about replacing skin cells or storing fat. For the most part, the body is running on autopilot.

I don't think I can work out the rest of your argument. From all our discussions, you seem to be a dualist as well. It's not thT I don't respect you, but I can't respect anything that requires faith, of any kind. Faith, is illogical, irrational, and to be blunt, irresponsible.

You're still not grasping the enormity of the free will experiment. You're both refuting it with "because I said so" arguments, or "science doesn't know what I know because of my personal experience of...."

If I argued an Alien stopped by my kitchen last night and told me the secrets of the universe, you'd probably think I was nuts. If I then countered with the argument that you can't know what I know, so just take it on faith, you'd hardly be moved.

This is the crux of it. If you've had personal experience, great, but it must be repeatable, on command, testable, to be verifiable.

A thing is not a thing cause I said so.


No it was not an "I said so" argument it was a "illogical conclusion/where's the proof" argunent. Keep up man. As for my own personal experiences in the realm oft classified as "supernateral" I will simply say that I have seen things science has yet to explain, and leave it at that. I could discuss at length, but that was not my intent here. But the notion that something is not real simply because it hasn't been quantified yet is limiting and short-sighted at best. Just like everyone was SURE the Eartb was the center of the universe hundreds of years ago- until proven otherwise. Some things just haven't been studied properly yet, or can't be at all at this time.



If every action and reaction was determined automatically by the brain with no thought by a person, human's brains would not have evolved beyond the base reptile brain.

The reason we have big old cerebellum, and especially a large frontal lobe, is that we have evolved the ability for abstract thought, including decision making and impulse control.

Now granted, the frontal lobe that regulates impulse control is not fully formed until a person is 24 or so, but it still exists.

People are responsible for their decisions.


Ah thank you so much! We don't often agree, but you have said exactly what I believe as well, and quite well. Evolution alone should show us that free will exists. It is what has pushed us this far in our path as a species.


I have been unable to locate multiple scientific studied to back this. Any different sources from the video or from the guys in the video? I mean, lets see the JAMA and psychology guys weigh in....multiple unrelated neurologists.....anything. All I see is a bunch of philisophical debate. I need actual science.

Just cause these guys are have debated a theory does not make their theory right. Yes, the sympathetic nervous system exists, as dies the human ability for abstract thought.

Show me multiple unrelated, cross dicipline studies that prove this theory. I don't buy it. At all.


Yes, please. I'd like to see some proof or evidence as well. I don't buy it either, and for pretty much the same reason. National Geographic and Discover have done some interesting articles on brain chemistry as it relates to behavior, but neither mentioned a lack of free will as the conclusion that should be drawn. I respect those scientific publications far more than a panel of random people I've never heard of philosophizing based on a faulty theory.

plastroncafe
08-09-2016, 10:30 PM
I dunno, "nerd culture" zealots are giving them a run for their money these days. :twink:

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all crave safe spaces.
And people will go to great lengths to protect theirs when they feel it's being threatened.

Commenter 42
08-10-2016, 12:04 AM
I don't buy it either, and for pretty much the same reason. National Geographic and Discover have done some interesting articles on brain chemistry as it relates to behavior, but neither mentioned a lack of free will as the conclusion that should be drawn. I respect those scientific publications far more than a panel of random people I've never heard of philosophizing based on a faulty theory.

Folks can still be experts on a subject, whether you've heard of them or not, but I digress...

This doesn't flat out state "free will doesn't exist", but it does say that dualism, the long held, more dominant belief, (one could argue is not unlike the argument that the Earth was flat ;) ) is properly challenged by these experiments.

From National Geographic (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/07/electrical-stimulation-produces-feelings-of-free-will/)



There's another 3 video's I wanted to link, but can't find right now. I'l post those when I come across them again.

OjCt-L0Ph5o
Here's an animation of the experiment that sparked this discussion. Presented by BBC 4. Interestingly, they've used a similar analogy to mine.


Your argument that "the notion that something is not real simply because it hasn't been quantified yet is limiting and short-sighted at best." is fair, to an extent, but if someone wants to argue that "X" is a thing, and exists, the burden of proof is on them, not the audience.

@FWLeo

Here's that link i wanted to leave for you before (http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/does-the-mind-play-dice-with-reason?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox#link_time=1470060494)

Bry
08-10-2016, 08:01 AM
Whether we want to admit it or not, we all crave safe spaces.
And people will go to great lengths to protect theirs when they feel it's being threatened.

S'funny how the types who use "safe space" as an insult tend to be the ones fighting the hardest and angriest for their own, isn't it? :twink:

But yes, everyone's guilty of it to some extent. But... I grew up being picked on and belittled for liking comics and geek stuff, and that whole scene going "mainstream" and drawing wider attention, more diversity, and criticism doesn't feel like an attack on something that's "mine". If anything it feels like vindication. And reading/hearing about the things I love through different perspectives than my own only gives me a new and different appreciation for them.

plastroncafe
08-10-2016, 10:31 AM
S'funny how the types who use "safe space" as an insult tend to be the ones fighting the hardest and angriest for their own, isn't it? :twink:


That is rather comical, I must admit.

But yes, everyone's guilty of it to some extent. But... I grew up being picked on and belittled for liking comics and geek stuff, and that whole scene going "mainstream" and drawing wider attention, more diversity, and criticism doesn't feel like an attack on something that's "mine". If anything it feels like vindication. And reading/hearing about the things I love through different perspectives than my own only gives me a new and different appreciation for them.

Same.
Every neckbearded, basement dwelling, mouthbreathing fanboy that's ever called me to the mat over something geek related has tried to back up their ire with the same song and dance sob story about how they were picked on in school.

As if I wasn't.
We like the exact same things, we went through the same gauntlet of tiny-minds day in and day out, and yet...people of that ilk never seem to realize that there were women and girls in the same trenches.

Guess it just gets in the way of their martyr complexes.

I think having to deal with that kind of thing has granted me with the ability to be stoked when stuff I love goes mainstream. It means I get to talk to more people about things that I love. It allows us to have a shared experience, and even if we don't see eye to eye on any number of other things, at least we'll have that in common.

This is kind of how I view religion.
It's a fandom, not unlike any other. People who worship together don't necessarily agree on every single thing know to man in a lock-step formation. But they do agree that they love this one thing enough to gather together in celebration of that one thing.

I imagine people with faith feel the same way I do when I'm excited about a Thing and get to spend time with other people who are also excited about that thing.

Of course, there are those who'd rather police who gets to be excited about a thing. And they'll do everything in their power to make sure that only their thing, the way they want that thing, is the only true thing. And if you dare try to enjoy that thing in a way they don't approve of, well...you'll just rue the day!

Nothing destroys a thing more than being forced to view it from only one angle.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-10-2016, 12:06 PM
Folks can still be experts on a subject, whether you've heard of them or not, but I digress...

This doesn't flat out state "free will doesn't exist", but it does say that dualism, the long held, more dominant belief, (one could argue is not unlike the argument that the Earth was flat ;) ) is properly challenged by these experiments.

From National Geographic (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/07/electrical-stimulation-produces-feelings-of-free-will/)



There's another 3 video's I wanted to link, but can't find right now. I'l post those when I come across them again.

OjCt-L0Ph5o
Here's an animation of the experiment that sparked this discussion. Presented by BBC 4. Interestingly, they've used a similar analogy to mine.


Your argument that "the notion that something is not real simply because it hasn't been quantified yet is limiting and short-sighted at best." is fair, to an extent, but if someone wants to argue that "X" is a thing, and exists, the burden of proof is on them, not the audience.

@FWLeo

Here's that link i wanted to leave for you before (http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/does-the-mind-play-dice-with-reason?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox#link_time=1470060494)


As interesting as that article is, it uses outside influences(the electrodes) to MIMIC what the brain itself does naturally. It is neither objective nor an accurate explanation of WHY we make conscious choices. It only describes how the brain makes them. It does not tell us why we choose to move a pawn on a chess board instead of a rook, either of which must be thought out before the action can be made. Chess is a good example because we must consider every possible move and its consequences beforemaking it. We could not do this without a complex and rational decision-making process that utilizes our ability to choose the best possible outcome. Free will in action on a complicated and defined level. Far removed from moving a hand while under surgery. That experiment doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just mimics what our mind does through an artificial means. In effect acting as an "outside will" controlling the movement, which is the exact opposite of what free will means.

Commenter 42
08-10-2016, 12:34 PM
The day a fanboy becomes a suicide bomber, a comparison can be made.
When even drawing a picture of Superman gets you beheaded, or Marvelites start capturing and tourturing DC Fanboys to "convert" or die, you can make that argument. If Image comics sent out missionaries to Japan, Africa, South America...

If 6 million people were gassed/starved/slaughtered just for being TMNT fans...

When Shazam has its own cult, forcing 6year old children to be raped in his honor...



Oversimplifying the dangers of religion, is dangerous. It's not live and let live, it never has been, which is the inherent problem.

Commenter 42
08-10-2016, 12:40 PM
As interesting as that article is, it uses outside influences(the electrodes) to MIMIC what the brain itself does naturally. It is neither objective nor an accurate explanation of WHY we make conscious choices. It only describes how the brain makes them. It does not tell us why we choose to move a pawn on a chess board instead of a rook, either of which must be thought out before the action can be made. Chess is a good example because we must consider every possible move and its consequences beforemaking it. We could not do this without a complex and rational decision-making process that utilizes our ability to choose the best possible outcome. Free will in action on a complicated and defined level. Far removed from moving a hand while under surgery. That experiment doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just mimics what our mind does through an artificial means. In effect acting as an "outside will" controlling the movement, which is the exact opposite of what free will means.

The patients claim "I moved my lips. I said something. What did I say?"
Not "You made my lips moved".

Your confirmation bias is too strong. Read that part again, you'll see it differently.

plastroncafe
08-10-2016, 01:08 PM
A little less than a year ago Two men drove from Iowa to Massachusetts with a trunk full of ammo and guns, boasting about ‘killing the competition’ on Facebook. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/23/boston-pokemon.html)

They were on their way to a Pokemon Championship.

GamerDorf.

Authorities say the girls were 12 years old when they lured their classmate into the woods after a birthday sleepover and repeatedly stabbed her. The victim, who was also 12, was found along a road, bleeding from wounds that nearly killed her. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-girls-plotted-slender-man-killing-flight-risk-article-1.2602766)

For the Slenderman.

The cynic in me says: every fandom you listed is modern, give them time to catch up.

Commenter 42
08-10-2016, 01:35 PM
A little less than a year ago Two men drove from Iowa to Massachusetts with a trunk full of ammo and guns, boasting about ‘killing the competition’ on Facebook. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/23/boston-pokemon.html)

They were on their way to a Pokemon Championship.

GamerDorf.

Authorities say the girls were 12 years old when they lured their classmate into the woods after a birthday sleepover and repeatedly stabbed her. The victim, who was also 12, was found along a road, bleeding from wounds that nearly killed her. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-girls-plotted-slender-man-killing-flight-risk-article-1.2602766)

For the Slenderman.

The cynic in me says: every fandom you listed is modern, give them time to catch up.

ahhh, she lays the trap. Then I say, but those were isolated incidents, and then you say, so are the terror attacks...

Clever girl. You could have also used the crazy Joker kid/DK Rises shooting.

Idk if trivializing the death of millions by comparing it to outliers is in good taste, do you? One girl getting stabbed, two guys with possible intent... neither of which are exactly supporting your argument.

2,996 civilians on 911.

500,000 Since the start of the Iraq war.

6 million Jews.

And that's just the famous numbers. If DC ever becomes a world superpower, and commits genocide, I'll concede your point.

plastroncafe
08-10-2016, 01:49 PM
The only trivialization I'm seeing in this sidebar of ours, is coming from you.

My initial comment was an explanation of how someone like myself, a non-believer with no understanding of faith as it were, has come to try and understand what it's like to be a believer.
To take something intangible and utterly foreign to me, and attempt to understand it by utilizing a conceptual frame that I do understand and have some familiarity.
Heck, I've even on occasion gone so far as to compare the various schisms in Christianity to the various iterations of Batman.

Is it a 1:1 frame?
No. No frame is. That's what makes it a frame.

But as a much scaled down model I still find it a viable tool.

I find it helpful to think of religion as a fandom.

You don't.
Okay.

Commenter 42
08-10-2016, 02:04 PM
The only trivialization I'm seeing in this sidebar of ours, is coming from you.

My initial comment was an explanation of how someone like myself, a non-believer with no understanding of faith as it were, has come to try and understand what it's like to be a believer.
To take something intangible and utterly foreign to me, and attempt to understand it by utilizing a conceptual frame that I do understand and have some familiarity.
Heck, I've even on occasion gone so far as to compare the various schisms in Christianity to the various iterations of Batman.

Is it a 1:1 frame?
No. No frame is. That's what makes it a frame.

But as a much scaled down model I still find it a viable tool.

I find it helpful to think of religion as a fandom.

You don't.
Okay.

No, I don't. You're also not coming at this topic "ignorant". You wrote previously that you are a recovering catholic, so spare me the deer in headlights routine. You joked about the church not wanting you back...

Religion is dangerous. You wouldn't stand for parallels to rape, from say, the hyperbole of someone touching my toys, which felt like I was raped.
I could argue framing too... but it might be a ****ing bad idea to say so, with no real correlation.

You did trivialize, then you compound it by dismissing my argument.
It's a sensitive topic, and being a cleric, I'd absolutely expect you, to understand.

Of all the people to play dumb...

plastroncafe
08-10-2016, 02:14 PM
No, I don't. You're also not coming at this topic "ignorant". You wrote previously that you are a recovering catholic, so spare me the deer in headlights routine. You joked about the church not wanting you back...

Religion is dangerous. You wouldn't stand for parallels to rape, from say, the hyperbole of someone touching my toys, which felt like I was raped.
I could argue framing too... but it might be a ****ing bad idea to say so, with no real correlation.

You did trivialize, then you compound it by dismissing my argument.
It's a sensitive topic, and being a cleric, I'd absolutely expect you, to understand.

Of all the people to play dumb...

One of the reasons I left the church was because I don't believe in god.
I never had faith in god.
I became a Catholic because I was indoctrinated, for lack of a better word, as a child. It's the religion I was raised with, but not one that I ever practiced with any success. Which was troubling for me growing up, because I thought if I just pretended a little harder I could get what people were talking about. I'd feel this faith and love that everyone spoke of during Mass.

Never happened.
I left.
That doesn't mean that the cultural trappings that are still very much a part of my family life, aren't still there.
The joke about them not wanting me back? Is because I'm a socially progressive queer woman, and I find those aspects of myself, partnered with my non-belief in god, would make me ill suited to a life of Catholic Practice.

(Also, they've changed Mass. Now it's just as confusing for me as it was for my mother when they went from Latin to English.)

And yeah, I'm dismissing your argument, because I don't have a horse in the race you're trying to start.
There's nothing to argue here.
People do terrible things for a whole bunch of terrible reasons, a good chunk of which can be boiled down to:
...we all crave safe spaces.
And people will go to great lengths to protect theirs when they feel it's being threatened.

There are millions of practitioners of every religion who do not do these things that you've listed. People who's lives have been changed for the better by belonging to this group.
I don't have a problem with god, it's some members of his fanclub that I could do without.

Powder
08-10-2016, 02:16 PM
I've actually come to prefer turkey burgers to the standard beef ones at this point. I can't tell the difference all that much, honestly. The main perk is that they're kinder to my stomach.

plastroncafe
08-10-2016, 02:18 PM
I've actually come to prefer turkey burgers to the standard beef ones at this point. I can't tell the difference all that much, honestly. The main perk is that they're kinder to my stomach.

I'm biased, I chipped a tooth on a bone fragment in the first turkey burger I'd ever eaten.

Candy Kappa
08-10-2016, 03:59 PM
I've never had a turkey burger, didn't know that was a thing. I'm intrigued.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-10-2016, 04:06 PM
The patients claim "I moved my lips. I said something. What did I say?"
Not "You made my lips moved".

Your confirmation bias is too strong. Read that part again, you'll see it differently.

Just because someones lips move does not mean they actually said anything intelligible if there was no real conscious intent on their part. The experiment isn't an objective study because the observation itself influences the outcome. That is one of science's biggest no-nos. If the method of observation directly determines the outcome's conclusion (direct influence through the act of ibservation) then the observation method has tainted the data. As is the case if you are directly stimulating the brain just to get the desired response to prove a theory. An EKG can tell you that there is activity in a certain area of the brain but that does not tell you what that activity means. I could measure electrical activity in the language center, but it won't tell me what comes out of the person's mouth. It won't tell me WHAT they said or what language it was even in. It only tells me they made sounds. I'm sorry but you are grasping at straws for proof that isn't there. Based on a couple of videos explaining a flawed theory.

Commenter 42
08-10-2016, 04:18 PM
...
So we essentially agree, on all of it, with the exception that I feel religious bias, and the trappings of, color peoples attitude towards social and technological change, retarding our ability to progress as a society. I feel there are inherent problems with the very notion of God, and a sizable portion of the fundamentals of religion itself. I'm opposed to dogmatic thinking, especially when it's deeply flawed.

Unless that dogma is the necessity of underwear on the outside. I'll never budge on that.

I'm not opposed to people being free to do as they please, but I am opposed to cults dictating the freedom of everyone. Religion, in it's most popular forms is precisely that; a yardstick to measure and penalize, suggesting we have free will, but limiting what we can do with it, if we want a reward when were dead.

BubblyShell22
08-10-2016, 04:32 PM
I see where Plas is coming from with the fandom theory though. After all, TMNT is a big fandom with a lot of different fans of the many incarnations of said brand. In the same way, religion is made up of different branches and different belief systems. And as has been demonstrated here on the forums, people get very passionate and vocal about their iterations sometimes saying that if you don't like this or that incarnation then you aren't a true fan. In the same way, religion has this bias with different sects claiming that they are the one "true" religion and if you believe differently than they do or if you don't subscribe to any religion, then you are going to hell. That is the biggest problem I have with the whole thing. Granted, not everyone is like that, but the ones who are really ruin the whole concept for me and make me not want to believe things like that at all.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-10-2016, 06:51 PM
Yeah, I wrote a whole huge response, and the iPad promptly died.

Basically, I need you to better explain what you mean by immaterial.
It sounds suspiciously like you're arguing spirituality is the only path to knowledge.

That's a non starter.

By Immaterial, I mean that which cannot be physically measured. For example, ideas, concepts, meanings, beliefs, values and our thoughts themselves cannot be observed using the scientific method. Imagining the thought of a bluebird is not the same as looking at the neuron currents that pulse throughout the brain. The meaning we give to everything itself is immaterial, imagine a purely physical universe without any of the meaning we give to it via our consciousness. Not only would you be using your immaterial soul to imagine that, but you would realize how nothing physical would change yet how we define it makes a lot of difference to us. There is a saying called "Perspective is everything" and I think it has alot of truth to it.

I feel that correlating them to each other is where many people have gone wrong, since they are of entirely different realms and that imagined thoughts themselves cannot be reduced to matter no matter how much we try. Call them an illusion if you want since they can't be measured using the scientific method, but being non-physical would make them beyond space and time, thus not applicable to the laws of physical determinism, which I accept on their own as laws that apply to the physical, but not the mental world. I would find it silly for many to claim that meaning (an immaterial concept) does not exist because it cannot be physically measured. Perhaps it does not physically exist, but does it refute the existence of meaning as a mental construct and an immaterial idea/concept that rests in our imagination?

I do not argue that spirituality is the only source of knowledge. I do think it answers life's most important questions, like our life purpose and the difference between good and evil, making it the most important field of all, but I do not think it is life's only source of knowledge. For reference, look at one of my previous paragraphs quoted below which refutes what you think I'm arguing:

"The proper way to investigate MENTAL thoughts, ideas, values and beliefs would be through MENTAL introspection, an entirely different field of study from science, which concerns itself with perceived objective reality through the repeated tests and observation of PHYSICAL stimuli in order to figure out how the PHYSICAL world works."

I have read the website link that you sent me and I have even seen the full video by Jonathon Keats, but I'd like to know how you would use this information to support your arguments coming from the position of Materialism, and refute my arguments of Dualism, if you agree with the article about Quantum physics that is. After that, I will appropriately construct my response. Regards.

IndigoErth
08-11-2016, 01:10 AM
Random, but since it's in relation to religion, I figured I'd toss this on here. Found it kind of funny.

Been tinkering with the genealogy research tonight and found this little tidbit. This would be my great-great-great-great-great grandfather (born around 1780).

http://i.imgur.com/6bqHlpr.jpg

Tisk tisk. Clearly I come from a long line of heathen nonconformists. :lol: Really, who even told on him?



Amazing how times change though. People are still uptight about stuff and yet when you consider the things people have relaxed about... and so far no gods have destroy the world over it.

Powder
08-11-2016, 02:49 AM
...so far no gods have destroy the world over it.

That's subjective. :tlol:

MsMarvelDuckie
08-11-2016, 06:20 AM
Not really. They are just sitting back and watching us do it ourselves. They haven't destroyed us because they don't NEED to- we do it well enough on our own!

@ FWLeo- thank you for that well-thought and intelligent post. You have stated perfectly what I have also tried to say, regarding the use of scientific attempts to study what is essentially a spiritual question. I think that the biggest issue here is that these scientists are, as you said, coming at the queztion from the wrong direction. Rather than refuting free will, the experiments are in fact simply describing the mechanics of it, ie, where it originates and how it relates to the physical brain. But the concept itself as you said is immaterial and outside the realm of science by definition. Conscious thought can be measured by electrodes, but not seen or described except through the nedium of thought itself. And therein lies the problem. You can measure the impulses that MAKE UP consciousness, but not the thoughts themselves as they have no physical matter or mass to study.

Commenter 42
08-14-2016, 09:30 PM
It's become a conversation about the legitimacy and efficacy of science, vs magic/spiritualism.

Works has been stressful lately, so I don't have the will or time to address all the points raised, but I will when I get the time...

Until then, @FW & @Duckie: I don't accept the premise, at all, so it's difficult have an honest debate.

Maybe Plastron is right, I can't believe I'm saying it, but her argument is sound. I just don't have a horse in the race. This metaphor is almost absolute; I'd argue there aren't any horses, just a race. A horseless race.



@FW:

So, just to be clear, your argument is that understanding religion is not the domain of reality, or physicality, any of the sciences, including physics, maths, biology, chemistry, cosmology, etc...

The only place to truly investigate "god" is, in your mind?

Is that the argument?

MsMarvelDuckie
08-14-2016, 09:42 PM
Well ask yourself- how do you quantify "god"? Where do you even look? Or the soul? It's not something science on its own can explain or define. There is no measureing stick for the soul. It is something one must simply accept and seek through meditation and reflection. Though there have been attempts, but none have ever definitively answered these questions. You can't ascribe meaning to life by just learning about the mechanics of it. That must come from within. And it is different for everyone. Your meaning may not be the same as someone else's. It is within the realm of philosophy, not science.

plastroncafe
08-14-2016, 09:54 PM
I won an argument I wasn't even part of?
Sweet! Go me!

Commenter 42
08-14-2016, 09:57 PM
No, there's no need to look for or accept what does not exist.

Try and see it from my perspective. I can see that you have a spiritual belief, even though I don't.
Earlier, I asked if my PlayStation was conscious. Is my book shelf? My couch? Do couches go to heaven when they die?
Not in anyway poking fun, just trying to get you to see how utterly absurd I find the concept.

I am not, just to be clear, calling you absurd. I'm cribbing the Dawkins FSM argument, sure...but I don't know how else to get across what it means to not believe.

Commenter 42
08-14-2016, 09:58 PM
I won an argument I wasn't even part of?
Sweet! Go me!

Great kid, now don't get cocky.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-14-2016, 10:02 PM
It's become a conversation about the legitimacy and efficacy of science, vs magic/spiritualism.

Works has been stressful lately, so I don't have the will or time to address all the points raised, but I will when I get the time...

Until then, @FW & @Duckie: I don't accept the premise, at all, so it's difficult have an honest debate.

Maybe Plastron is right, I can't believe I'm saying it, but her argument is sound. I just don't have a horse in the race. This metaphor is almost absolute; I'd argue there aren't any horses, just a race. A horseless race.



@FW:

So, just to be clear, your argument is that understanding religion is not the domain of reality, or physicality, any of the sciences, including physics, maths, biology, chemistry, cosmology, etc...

The only place to truly investigate "god" is, in your mind?

Is that the argument?

Hope you have been coping well with work, and there is no hurry or pressure to reply :) if you don't want to thats totally fine, and if you do tbats great as well.

As for your question, yes, that is what I believe to its core, I see the connection between God and physicality to be so close yet so far, how we view everything (including science) through our immaterial minds and yet how the mind itself is just not of the same essence to every physical thing we percieve through it.

You're a clever person C42, and I am enjoying this. I hope things get better for you at work and don't get discouraged from ever replying, as I love to see your thoughts and I don't view this debate or people of other views in a hostile way. Peace :)

IndigoErth
08-14-2016, 10:06 PM
I'd argue there aren't any horses, just a race. A horseless race.
And at that point, why do people even bother with a race. The objectives are all different, the finish lines are all different, and when anyone crosses their own and no one else shows up, it's not even a win.

It's August, it's too hot for races anyhow, just sit down and share some cold drinks instead.

Commenter 42
08-14-2016, 10:14 PM
Hope you have been coping well with work, and there is no hurry or pressure to reply :) if you don't want to thats totally fine, and if you do tbats great as well.

As for your question, yes, that is what I believe to its core, I see the connection between God and physicality to be so close yet so far, how we view everything (including science) through our immaterial minds and yet how the mind itself is just not of the same essence to every physical thing we percieve through it.

You're a clever person C42, and I am enjoying this. I hope things get better for you at work and don't get discouraged from ever replying, as I love to see your thoughts and I don't view this debate or people of other views in a hostile way. Peace :)

Despite our different views, I respect you. You've stood your ground, and allowed the debate to remain intellectual, instead of devolving into hostility.

It's refreshing, so yes, when I can give my full attention, I'll gladly go much deeper, see if I can't disabuse you a little of your illusions. :lol::lol:

Commenter 42
08-14-2016, 10:19 PM
And at that point, why do people even bother with a race. The objectives are all different, the finish lines are all different, and when anyone crosses their own and no one else shows up, it's not even a win.

It's August, it's too hot for races anyhow, just sit down and share some cold drinks instead.

Brilliant. Better said, for sure. That's some A game girl. Dayum.

I'm not even running a C today, need a break. You just won the thread. Again.

That might end up my first ever Sig quote. Boom.

Machias Banshee
08-15-2016, 07:26 PM
I just wanted to pop in and say that you have done a GREAT job with the debating in here... I've been keeping an eye on everyone here, and you've ALL been so civil and fantastic with sharing your views. I wish all the threads on the forum were like this. :)


Carry on...

Powder
08-15-2016, 07:27 PM
I thought to say the same last night but I didn't wanna jinx it. :tlol:

But yeah, it is a refreshing change of pace!

BubblyShell22
08-16-2016, 04:19 PM
I agree. We may have different views, but everything has been going great and that's a wonderful thing compared to how these discussions have ended in the past.

To add, I do believe free will exists and that we all make the conscious decision to act on a certain thing. I may have said this before, but I don't remember so I decided to post my views again.

As for the meaning of life, I feel that we will never know what that is as a whole. I feel that we can create our own meaning out of life and do what we should for ourselves. If one believes in God and wishes to do things for God, that's cool. If one doesn't then you can always just do things for yourself or for others as needed. Life throws us curve balls and while it may be frustrating at times, the best thing one can do is just roll with the punches. I truly believe in good and bad karma and that if you do good, something good will happen and if you do bad or if someone else does something bad, then karma will strike in a bad way.

Needless to say, with everything my mom has been doing for my dad, I feel some good karma will be coming her way even if she doesn't believe it with everything that's been going on.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-16-2016, 09:22 PM
No, there's no need to look for or accept what does not exist.

Try and see it from my perspective. I can see that you have a spiritual belief, even though I don't.
Earlier, I asked if my PlayStation was conscious. Is my book shelf? My couch? Do couches go to heaven when they die?
Not in anyway poking fun, just trying to get you to see how utterly absurd I find the concept.

I am not, just to be clear, calling you absurd. I'm cribbing the Dawkins FSM argument, sure...but I don't know how else to get across what it means to not believe.


Yet a couch CAN'T "go to heaven" because it is not alive and therefore cannot die. Further, it can't believe or not believe in god. It has no mind or consciousness. That logic is faulty. Perhaps if you had used a cat or a horse, the analovy would be valid. Inanimate objects cannot by their very innanimate nature have any kind of soul or consciousness. So I don't understand where you are even going with that line of arguement.

You assume that I don't understand what it means to not believe in faith or a higher power. The truth is I DO. I went for several years of being an atheist as a teen, in part due to the rampant hypocrisy I saw in organized religion- particularly the one I was raised in. It also had a lot to do with things that went on when I was growing up, and how I felt that no loving deity would allow such things, so there must not be one. But then I began looking for meaning and purpose outside of organized mainstream faiths. I went through a period of deep introspection to what I TRULY believed in, both as a philosophy and ethically/morally. That was what led me to where I am now. I "dabbled" in several paths, including Buddhism, Taoism and Confusianism, Native American shamanism, and even back to Christianity as a strictly moral practice. Nothing really made sense until I stumbled onto the "Craft" as some call it during my research. But for years, I really hated the entire concept of church and faith. I could not reconcile it with what I felt. Because what I felt was an affinity for something far older and more primal and instinctive. Essentially I was drawn to nature and its cycles, and the complexities that exist within a spider's web or a drop of rain. But that is what being Wiccan does for me- it shows the connections between all life and all physical matter. For me that IS the meaning to life and the universe itself. It is as much spuritual as concrete, and there is no differnce between the two for me as they are intertwined. They ARE the threads in the web of life.

Commenter 42
08-16-2016, 10:28 PM
Yet a couch CAN'T "go to heaven" because it is not alive and therefore cannot die. Further, it can't believe or not believe in god. It has no mind or consciousness. That logic is faulty. Perhaps if you had used a cat or a horse, the analovy would be valid. Inanimate objects cannot by their very innanimate nature have any kind of soul or consciousness. So I don't understand where you are even going with that line of arguement.

My point was, this, exactly. it's obvious to you, that my statement was ridiculous; so it is with your assertion that souls, or that any afterlife exists, to me.

Maybe this would be a better analogy; for some people, Michael Bay made a perfect TMNT movie, but for other people, he didn't know a Michelangelo from a Michelob. Some people believe Trump, a billionaire from NY, cares deeply about them, and will infact Make America great again, while others know America was never actually great, and that corporate greed is the only thing running for office, blue or red.

People hold illogical ideas, mostly because once we decide to agree with an idea, our brain works very hard to convince us that we were right, even when we're wrong.




You assume that I don't understand what it means to not believe in faith or a higher power. The truth is I DO. I went for several years of being an atheist as a teen, in part due to the rampant hypocrisy I saw in organized religion- particularly the one I was raised in. It also had a lot to do with things that went on when I was growing up, and how I felt that no loving deity would allow such things, so there must not be one. But then I began looking for meaning and purpose outside of organized mainstream faiths. I went through a period of deep introspection to what I TRULY believed in, both as a philosophy and ethically/morally. That was what led me to where I am now. I "dabbled" in several paths, including Buddhism, Taoism and Confusianism, Native American shamanism, and even back to Christianity as a strictly moral practice. Nothing really made sense until I stumbled onto the "Craft" as some call it during my research. But for years, I really hated the entire concept of church and faith. I could not reconcile it with what I felt. Because what I felt was an affinity for something far older and more primal and instinctive. Essentially I was drawn to nature and its cycles, and the complexities that exist within a spider's web or a drop of rain. But that is what being Wiccan does for me- it shows the connections between all life and all physical matter. For me that IS the meaning to life and the universe itself. It is as much spuritual as concrete, and there is no differnce between the two for me as they are intertwined. They ARE the threads in the web of life.

So, you didn't like religion A, so you left. You assumed the only reason that god didn't exists was because bad things happen. Then you went looking for meaning to life, and finally found something that fits your views.

To be blunt, you never stopped believing, You just changed horses. You've never been an atheist, just angry. An atheist recognizes that there isn't a meaning to life, in the theistic sense at least.

Duckie, you want life to mean something, so you need a way to put it all together.
I don't think that way, and a lot of people don't either. I'm not saying you couldn't, I'm saying you haven't. Once you cross that bridge, for real, there isn't a way back.


The last bit, about the complexity of a spiders web, sure it's cool. The way Hydrogen and oxygen clump together, it's great! Water is tasty, we all need it.
But all the meaning? You're brain is making it up, not the universe.

Yes, the universe is all interconnected, and we have a scientific term for it! it's called the laws of physics! it's called the standard model! It's called string theory!

The Universe really doesn't care about meaning anything. Tea Leaves really are just tea leaves.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-17-2016, 09:37 AM
No, I really DID completely disavow all faith for a long time. I left because, like you, I was disgusted with the whole concept. Not just because bad things happened- that started long before I took that unbelieving attitude. But the fact that even growing up in that faith I never connected with it and never felt it meant anything beyond stories to scare people into behaving was part of that too. You seem to think this was all a short process that I went straight through. I didn't. I stopped believing in ANYTHING but "science and reality" for several YEARS before I ever began to think about life having a meaning. That didn't happen until I was almost out of high school, and by then I'd been done with religion of any kind for nearly half my life at that point. From about 8 to 17. So yes, I WAS. It wasn't until I met a guy on a school trip my junior year who was Buddhist (and a Brit) that I started asking myself if there was more to life than just what we can explain. When it finally happened, it was a life-altering experience. I began to question what I'd been taught, and what faith and spirituallity was and what it meant to me. But in between, I was just as pro-science and completely against all religion as you. I WAS where you are. But I changed. Because I looked beyond what I "knew" as real and asked "what is all this over here?".

Now, I realize I did go through that at a young age. But there were things going on that caused that attitude, and yes I WAS angry- at myself for thinking there could ever have been a "god" in the first place. At my family for forceing that "myth" on me. At society for swallowing the idea of a kind and just deity. I was YOU. It was that trip and the person I met that changed that. I didn't start soul-searching until after I returned and got curious about HIS faith. And realized there were other ways of looking at the world that didn't match what I grew up with or what I thought I knew. (Side note- he was my first love which is a big part of the reason why it changed my way of thinking.)

As an aside, paranormal studies are something I have always had an interest in, but not for the reasons you seem to ascribe. Not because of any belief in an afterlife or heaven, faith, etc, but because the evidence for residual "spirit" energy is compelling. I approach it as a phneomenon that is both physical and concrete which can be understood- even if we call it a "ghost". The energy readings measured by MANY experts in such "hauntings" and the objects moving about in many cases is hardly something to dismiss as imagination. Especially after one has seen such things first-hand, and know there was no logical explanation for why it should have happened. As Sherlock Holmes would say, eliminate all other possibilities and the one that remains, however implausible, must be the truth. That is how I go about it. Process of elimination. That's science for you.

But of course, I know I will not change your mind- I simply want you to understand why and how I got to where I am. People are not static and unchanging. Sometimes a life-changing person or event comes along that makes you stop and ask yourself what is important to you. And THAT my friend is the true meaning of life- that ONE THING, as Curly said in City Slickers. But you have to find it for yourself. And that is why people have faith in anything in the first place. Not because it is logical or reasonable or because it is scientifically explainable. But because it makes sense to them as individuals. It is that person's ONE THING that means something to them. Everything else is just justification, complication, or semantics. It is that ONE THING that matters TO YOU that gives it meaning.

plastroncafe
08-17-2016, 10:05 AM
Sometimes it takes someone outside of a group to explain that group.
Like for instance, this bit from Terry Pratchett's, "Hogfather."

I4oxrTSRkC0

Pratchett was a very vocal atheist and death-rights activist, he was also a superb satirist.

For those who don't know his work, it's largely based in a fictional high-fantasy world where the earth is flat and sits upon the back of four elephants which in turn rides on the back of a giant turtle. The Hogfather is this world's Santa Claus, and in this book he goes missing, so Death takes his place until he's found.

The woman is Death's granddaughter Susan. At the beginning it was explained to her that if "Santa" wasn't found the sun wouldn't rise. In the above clip he's explaining to her why that is.

(And yeah, that's totally Mary Crawly from "Downton Abbey" playing Susan.)

MsMarvelDuckie
08-17-2016, 10:15 AM
Sorry to double post but I just want to address your assertion about the laws of physics. It may surprise you to learn that my faith actually does address this matter. One of the main tenets is that what people call "magick" (which you cinsider absurd) is actually nature's laws in action, cause and effect on a very subtle scale that can either be almost unnoticable or very dramatic depending on what is being sought and how.

There is something we call acting in accord. Belief by itself is not enough to cause a cyange, one must also act in accord to bring it to fruition- for instance, one cannot expect to find a mate by simply doing an invocation, one must also get out and meet people and do things out where the kind of person you want to meet might be found. Places like hobby groups, coffee shops, or whatever it is you enjoy.

In spite of what you might think, there is NO conflict between what I believe and what science tells me- they are one and the same. What you call string theory and standard model is a fancy way of explaining how what I do works, but that doesn't change what it is or that it works. (Whether you agree or not is not the issue here, I am just explaining how it is taught to novices.) Science does not yet have a way to understand it, but it obeys the laws of physics in its implication. It works THROUGH physics and the laws of nature, which is what most people never realize or fully understand. Call it coinicdence or whatever, but it doesn't change the results! It just makes them easier to stomach for some people.....

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 01:06 PM
I'm going to leave the second post alone, for now, as what I read could be summerized to " no, not science, my faith, which is just like science, but better, and science doesn't understand it, but maybe be day".

You've not said anything to compel me. If you're saying witchcraft is just science with a different name, then why bother calling it witchcraft?

Again, if I want a sandwich, of course I should get up, and make it; if instead I sit there wishing for it to magically appear, it won't.

But what your saying is, if I want to my invocation, to manifest sandwich to work, I still need to make a sandwich?

Doesn't seem all that useful.


Anyway, look, We don't feel the same way about "religion". I'm not angry at it, or God; that would be illogical. To be honest, unless the topic comes up, I don't consider it at all. I have no emotions, at all about it.

It's clear to me, that religion isn't helpful, on the macro scale, to anyone at all. It's the worst "because we said so", ever.

When I said you were not an atheist, I meant, based on everything you've said, you hadn't ended your belief, just pushed away one type, replacing it with another a few years later. In between, you were a pragmatist, and an agnostic, from the sounds of it, perhaps identifying as an atheist. It didn't read as though you'd made any realization, other than that religious restaurant wasn't serving food you liked, but you were still hungry. Eventually, through your first love, you found your spirituality again.

Lots of food analogies going here... must be lunch time.

One does not suddenly start believing in Santa again; they simply never stopped.

It's hard to unknown a thing, once you know it.

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 01:27 PM
Sometimes it takes someone outside of a group to explain that group.
Like for instance, this bit from Terry Pratchett's, "Hogfather."

I4oxrTSRkC0



...or I could have just said "watch the video".

Yeah...that would of been better.

*ahem...

Watch the video from @plastron.

plastroncafe
08-17-2016, 01:59 PM
...or I could have just said "watch the video".

Yeah...that would of been better.

*ahem...

Watch the video from @plastron.

I'd posit that my video, though created from the works of an ardent atheist, is leaps and bounds more hopeful and nurturing than a lot of the anti-theist stuff I've seen.

In Pratchett's world believing in something makes it true. He's got another book called "Small Gods" in which a god's power is dictated by the number of followers they've got. The Great God Om, arguably the largest religion on the Disc, gets turned into a one-eyed tortoise because though he has more temples and followers than any other god....only one person actually believes in him.

It's a rather nice take down/send up of organized religion that very much appealed to me when I read it. (Much the same way some sections of Christopher Moore's "Lamb" and a rather sizable section of "Good Omens" by both Pratchett and Neil Gaimen did.)

I agree with the basic assertion that we need to believe in something. Whether that something is a bearded white dude in the sky, the ten-fold path, or science as we understand it...well that's up to the person having the belief. And yeah, I'm putting science in there, because let's face it, unless we're all doing the research ourselves, independently, there's a good deal of faith going on even in the Science community.

You may not be angry at religion, 42, but you do rather use a lot of negative words to refer to something you claim to be ambivalent of.

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 02:41 PM
I'm not angry at God, because he lets terrible things happen, or because I didn't get that pony I always wanted; I can't be angry at what isn't.
I'm angry that, as you've rightly pointed out, when people believe it to be true, for all intents and purposes, it becomes true.
I'm angry at stupidity, in general, and willful ignorance. Why do we allow this? Because most of us are too weak to endure otherwise.

It's that weakness I find contemptuous. The intellectual dishonesty, even more so. The hypocrisy, the fallacies; all of it.

I don't know about you, but I hate when people spread lies., calling them truths. for years the lie was, women were property of men. how's that "truth that we all believed" grab you? Swell, right?
People argue free will, and yet want to be told how to live. We don't need any further evidence to support that humans are happy with the illusion of, nothing more. We want rules to follow, but with the option not to, but if we don't, we want to be punished.
When you start killing people over the man in the sky, no matter who you think that man is, or how you relate to him, the illusion has gone too far.

It's interesting that you have a live and let live attitude. You're all "believe what you want" until it's a gender slight, then you're unapologetically aggressive and vengeful.

Just saying.

plastroncafe
08-17-2016, 02:53 PM
It's interesting that you have a live and let live attitude. You're all "believe what you want" until it's a gender slight, then you're unapologetically aggressive and vengeful.

Just saying.

Uh huh.
Well that's some interesting hyperbole you've got there, Lou.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-17-2016, 03:01 PM
I'm going to leave the second post alone, for now, as what I read could be summerized to " no, not science, my faith, which is just like science, but better, and science doesn't understand it, but maybe be day".

You've not said anything to compel me. If you're saying witchcraft is just science with a different name, then why bother calling it witchcraft?

Again, if I want a sandwich, of course I should get up, and make it; if instead I sit there wishing for it to magically appear, it won't.

But what your saying is, if I want to my invocation, to manifest sandwich to work, I still need to make a sandwich?

Doesn't seem all that useful.

Anyway, look, We don't feel the same way about "religion". I'm not angry at it, or God; that would be illogical. To be honest, unless the topic comes up, I don't consider it at all. I have no emotions, at all about it.

It's clear to me, that religion isn't helpful, on the macro scale, to anyone at all. It's the worst "because we said so", ever.

When I said you were not an atheist, I meant, based on everything you've said, you hadn't ended your belief, just pushed away one type, replacing it with another a few years later. In between, you were a pragmatist, and an agnostic, from the sounds of it, perhaps identifying as an atheist. It didn't read as though you'd made any realization, other than that religious restaurant wasn't serving food you liked, but you were still hungry. Eventually, through your first love, you found your spirituality again.

Lots of food analogies going here... must be lunch time.

One does not suddenly start believing in Santa again; they simply never stopped.

It's hard to unknown a thing, once you know it.


No, I never said it was "better" That's not what I'm saying AT ALL. Just that what I do is no different, because it works THROUGH the laws of science as we know them. You missed the point completely there.

Also, that's NOT how that works- not by a long shot. what I do is far more than just reciting some hocus-pocus over some candles and a pentacle. The acting in accord means that you must take appropriate steps to allow the weaving to work. Sitting at home if you are looking for love won't get you anywhere, obviously. You have to go out where you can meet others, and THEN the person you are meant for will find you. It means that if you want a new job, it won't just fall in your lap because you asked a higher power to help you. You must still look around to see what is out there. It isn't like making a sandwich. That's not even what it is USED for. It is for making changes in your life- REAL changes, through learning to, shall we say, pluck the strands of your own tapestry of fate. TO think it is like Bewitched where things just appear, is a gross misunderstanding of what it is and how it works. But that's your prerogative, I guess.

I will say it again, just so it is clear- I was DONE with religion. Period. For a long time, in fact. Didn't want anything to do with it. Felt just as you claim to- that it was absurd and that those old stories in holy books were just that- stories. And not even particularly good or plausible ones, at that. I was all about evolution (still believe the Bible has merely given a condensed version of it, considering how it basically gives an evolutionary progression in Genesis) and the Big Bang. Still am. But now it is tempered with the realization that knowing HOW/WHEN something happens is not the same as knowing WHY. And if you don't like the food a restaurant serves you, you can leave, but you can also send it back and complain to the manager. That's not the same thing at all. Who do you complain to if you're not happy with the cards life has dealt you? Where's the manager to send it back to? You keep making these arguments that only half-fit. (For the record, I am not bound to nor pray to any specific deity, either. I have a couple of patrons, but that is as far as it goes. I use my own strength for any working I do.)

Am I a pragmatist? To a certain point, yes, but I'm not a huge believer in ends justifying means, or in compromises. I'm a realist, if anything, which is kind of odd, considering my faith, but as I said, the two are hardly mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. What I was THEN was completely convinced that "god" didn't exist. That there was no hand steering the ship, it was just spinning around on a path determined solely by gravity. When someone asked if I believed in "god", I said no. Because to me, there wasn't one. agnostic? Last time I checked, an agnostic actually still believes in something. I didn't, unless one counts science as a "faith". The questioning didn't come until YEARS later. And even then, only because of the person I met, and because I grew curious to learn about HIS faith, just to better understand what it was about, and why he believed it. So no, I wasn't agnostic until 17. Please don't confuse what I BECAME with what I was BEFORE. I know my own beliefs quite well enough to tell the two apart.

Knowing that we are made up of atoms and that our thoughts are electric impulses doesn't make it any less miraculous that we have a consciousness that can contemplate the question in the first place. Or to put it another way, if one has to ask the question of is there a soul, isn't the answer that if one CAN ask, the answer is yes? YMMV, but I think it is self-evident. I think therefore I am. I am not just my body, as it is just a collection of atoms. I am my own individual mind/soul. No one else is me, because no one else has the same mind or soul. Even though we are ALL made up of exactly the same stuff.

Fun fact, alchemy posits that one can turn lead into gold. Modern physics bears this out through the means of fission. With a fission reactor, it IS possible to bump an electron from an atom of lead to change it to gold (they are literally one electron apart in the elemental table). But it is cost prohibitive, due to the amount of power needed to do it even on a small scale- so we can't just turn one to the other on a whim. It's a theory that is fun to imagine doing, but realistically, it's just not a good idea. But the alchemists were right. That should tell us something....


I'd posit that my video, though created from the works of an ardent atheist, is leaps and bounds more hopeful and nurturing than a lot of the anti-theist stuff I've seen.

In Pratchett's world believing in something makes it true. He's got another book called "Small Gods" in which a god's power is dictated by the number of followers they've got. The Great God Om, arguably the largest religion on the Disc, gets turned into a one-eyed tortoise because though he has more temples and followers than any other god....only one person actually believes in him.

It's a rather nice take down/send up of organized religion that very much appealed to me when I read it. (Much the same way some sections of Christopher Moore's "Lamb" and a rather sizable section of "Good Omens" by both Pratchett and Neil Gaimen did.)

I agree with the basic assertion that we need to believe in something. Whether that something is a bearded white dude in the sky, the ten-fold path, or science as we understand it...well that's up to the person having the belief. And yeah, I'm putting science in there, because let's face it, unless we're all doing the research ourselves, independently, there's a good deal of faith going on even in the Science community.

You may not be angry at religion, 42, but you do rather use a lot of negative words to refer to something you claim to be ambivalent of.


Hmm, you noticed that too? I find it strange that someone who says they don't feel anything about something speaks so negatively about it. There must be a reason for that kind of negativity. I felt the same way as a kid, whenever certain things would happen and I found myself wondering how there could ever be any final judgement on people responsible for those things. There certainly wasn't any giant hand punishing them that I could see. And never would be, so it didn't exist at all.

Small Gods- I've read that one; enjoyed it thoroughly! And it was intriguing in how faith was presented. I also found it oddly fitting that the god in that book became a tortoise, since the world was supposed to be on the back of one. (Below the elephants, of course. A lot of Hindu imagery in that world.)

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 03:14 PM
Uh huh.
Well that's some interesting hyperbole you've got there, Lou.

Lol, even the mere mention, and you get, well...
Yeah. That.

And pet names? We we're doing so well...

plastroncafe
08-17-2016, 03:17 PM
Hmm, you noticed that too? I find it strange that someone who says they don't feel anything about something speaks so negatively about it. There must be a reason for that kind of negativity. I felt the same way as a kid, whenever certain things would happen and I found myself wondering how there could ever be any final judgement on people responsible for those things. There certainly wasn't any giant hand punishing them that I could see. And never would be, so it didn't exist at all.

Same. When I learned that I couldn't just will faith into existence, I got angry too. I consider myself lucky to the nth degree that there wasn't an internet for me to lash out at people on back in those days, because...yikes. Just...yikes. Wee Anti-theist Misogynistic Plas would not have made many friends, that's for damn sure.

I've very much mellowed in my advanced age, when it comes to matters of faith. I still don't "get" it on a 1:1 level, and often times require the use of metaphor to feel as though I'm even coming close to grok.

Small Gods- I've read that one; enjoyed it thoroughly! And it was intriguing in how faith was presented. I also found it oddly fitting that the god in that book became a tortoise, since the world was supposed to be on the back of one. (Below the elephants, of course. A lot of Hindu imagery in that world.)

It all comes back to turtles.
I'd have never started reading Pratchett in the first place were it not for the "Power from Belief" trope. I was talking to a friend of mine about the "Hall of Lost Legends" Mirage Vol 1 issue, and they suggested "Small Gods" to me.

Yeah, Pratchett was a smart guy, the world is dimmer now in his absence for certain.

The turtle moves!
(gnu terry pratchett)


And pet names? We we're doing so well...

It's not a pet name, it's a reference.
http://i.imgur.com/g4O0sjD.gif

FredWolfLeonardo
08-17-2016, 03:17 PM
Its been quite a while since I have posted here and alot of stuff has been said, so I won't be responding to everything said, but since Duckie has talked about her former atheism, I guessed I'd also give my two cents on my former atheism.

Less than a year ago, I was an Atheist. Technically an Atheist Agnostic since I thought that the existence of God was unknowable but at the same time, lacked a belief in God.

The main turning points for me was all the scientific evidence of evolution that wholeheartedly contradicted everything I had been raised believing, from the account of The Garden of Eden to the Global Flood.

It was during my study of evolutionary Biology that I came to reject the idea that the universe was divinely created, I even read a lot of Atheist authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Even my final Year Biology teachers had a lot to say on the topic and I still respect them for helping me in my search for answers, its strange how perspectives can differ even among teachers in the same discipline. For e.g. One of my Biology teachers was a regular Anglican church goer who firmly believed in free will and Christianity while the other was a hardcore materialistic atheist who would not shy away from humorously and sarcastically mocking Creationism during class discussions.

Anyhow, I don't have too much time right now, but I may dedicate some time later to talking about why I no longer consider myself Atheist.

IndigoErth
08-17-2016, 03:19 PM
He's got another book called "Small Gods" in which a god's power is dictated by the number of followers they've got.
I may need to check that out, I've [entirely un-seriously] toyed with a similar thought before, particularly in relation to the big, convert-seeking, afterlife-threatening religions.

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 03:24 PM
..is not the same as knowing WHY.

Again, my argument, is that there is no why. things do not happen for any reason, other than to happen.

I'll be as clear as I can be.

I have anger, It's obvious. We are not angry for the same reasons, at all.
You can't be angry with something that does not exist. I don't want a god. i don't need a god.
I don't need to know why i'm here. I don't think theres a reason for being here.

But while I'm here, (which is probably a lot better than not being here, all things considered), could the insane folks stop trying to fool everyone with their stupid?
If we're able to be a team, to play together, work together for a better life, having a few members off in the corner talking to themselves is counter productive.

But now it's two against one, and that's irritating. Religion is dangerous, dance around it all you like.

At the end of the day, I don't really care what you think. We all die, the end. The only person you're fooling, is you, unless your a wearing s suicide vest, in which case.
it's possibly a lot of other people.

Would be a better world if they just sacrificed themselves instead.

FredWolfLeonardo
08-17-2016, 03:43 PM
But now it's two against one, and that's irritating.

Not sure if you're referring to me or not, but be assured I'm not against you. I'm all for keeping this discussion civil and not hostile.

plastroncafe
08-17-2016, 04:01 PM
"We'll all get alone fine so long as you see things as I do, and believe what I believe."


I don't think religion is dangerous, I think people in search of power are dangerous, and religion is often the tool they use in search of that power. Which isn't to say religious people hold the patent for devastation. There have been quite a few people who we not theists who've been dangerous too.

BubblyShell22
08-17-2016, 04:46 PM
Again, my argument, is that there is no why. things do not happen for any reason, other than to happen.

I'll be as clear as I can be.

I have anger, It's obvious. We are not angry for the same reasons, at all.
You can't be angry with something that does not exist. I don't want a god. i don't need a god.
I don't need to know why i'm here. I don't think theres a reason for being here.

But while I'm here, (which is probably a lot better than not being here, all things considered), could the insane folks stop trying to fool everyone with their stupid?
If we're able to be a team, to play together, work together for a better life, having a few members off in the corner talking to themselves is counter productive.

But now it's two against one, and that's irritating. Religion is dangerous, dance around it all you like.

At the end of the day, I don't really care what you think. We all die, the end. The only person you're fooling, is you, unless your a wearing s suicide vest, in which case.
it's possibly a lot of other people.

Would be a better world if they just sacrificed themselves instead.

I'll chime in here and say that things often do happen for a reason. I don't believe in God either, but I do believe that things happen for logical reasons and that there's always a consequence to our actions. I call it karma and believe that if good is done, it will be given back. If bad things are done, then bad things will happen.

Let's use my dad's situation as an example. He suffered a massive stroke and my Catholic family believes that God punished him because he wasn't a very nice man at times and sometimes treated my mother horribly. I feel that it happened for two reasons: First, he didn't go to the doctor and he drank excessively so that's the logical reason why he had the stroke. Second, it was karma's way of getting back at him for all the wrong he did in the world. So while the two views are a bit different in reason, they still hold the same weight.

Things do happen for a reason all of the time. It's just a matter of what you believe the reason is whether it be a karmic thing or a logical thing. Nothing is done at random at all in life.

I agree with you that religion can become dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. However, there are many others who subscribe to religion who are peaceful and who just simply believe and leave it at that without judgment and those are the people I'm fine with. Believe me, I used to have your attitude about it as well, but I have changed and my views have changed. Religion itself isn't the problem. It's the people who use it negatively that are the problem.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-17-2016, 06:08 PM
"We'll all get alone fine so long as you see things as I do, and believe what I believe."

I don't think religion is dangerous, I think people in search of power are dangerous, and religion is often the tool they use in search of that power. Which isn't to say religious people hold the patent for devastation. There have been quite a few people who we not theists who've been dangerous too.


This, absolutely. Religion itself is no more dangerous than any other concept or tool. It is the people wielding it like a sword to advance their agendas that are dangerous. In the RIGHT hands, it can be a life-affirming and beautiful thing, that turns people's lives around.


I'll chime in here and say that things often do happen for a reason. I don't believe in God either, but I do believe that things happen for logical reasons and that there's always a consequence to our actions. I call it karma and believe that if good is done, it will be given back. If bad things are done, then bad things will happen.

Let's use my dad's situation as an example. He suffered a massive stroke and my Catholic family believes that God punished him because he wasn't a very nice man at times and sometimes treated my mother horribly. I feel that it happened for two reasons: First, he didn't go to the doctor and he drank excessively so that's the logical reason why he had the stroke. Second, it was karma's way of getting back at him for all the wrong he did in the world. So while the two views are a bit different in reason, they still hold the same weight.

Things do happen for a reason all of the time. It's just a matter of what you believe the reason is whether it be a karmic thing or a logical thing. Nothing is done at random at all in life.

I agree with you that religion can become dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. However, there are many others who subscribe to religion who are peaceful and who just simply believe and leave it at that without judgment and those are the people I'm fine with. Believe me, I used to have your attitude about it as well, but I have changed and my views have changed. Religion itself isn't the problem. It's the people who use it negatively that are the problem.


This, too. Karma (or the Rule of Three) is part and parcel of my own faith, in that it is even part of the Rede:

Bide the Wiccan Rede ye must,
In perfect love and perfect trust.
Eight words the Law fulfill:
An' it harm none, do as ye will.
Except in thine own defense it be,
Ever mind the Rule of Three.
Follow this with mind and heart,
And merry meet, and merry part.

This is how I live my life- accepting of and caring for others, doing harm to none (at least intentionally- that includes self) unless it is in defense, and treating nature and its creatures with respect. What I do comes back to me three times over, so I am always mindful of that.

Bubbly, I find it interesting that you see both the logical why and the karmic one. That is my view too! There can be both material and immaterial reasons for things, one doesn't preclude the other. (And for the record, I firmly ascribe to Chaos Theory, which goes a long way to explaining the how and why of much of what I do....)

Foombamaroom
08-17-2016, 06:59 PM
This, absolutely. Religion itself is no more dangerous than any other concept or tool. It is the people wielding it like a sword to advance their agendas that are dangerous. In the RIGHT hands, it can be a life-affirming and beautiful thing, that turns people's lives around.



^This.

I'm personally somewhere between an agnostic an an atheist (My views, TLDR: Not sure if anything comes afterwards, so I'm focusing on this life that I know I have.) but I went to a Catholic school for a big chunk of my life. I have friends who believe in God, and I had friends who believe in God.

I'll zone in on Catholicism for a moment; the whole message that's taught is to love everyone. And yes, some Catholics carry out that message and love people like they're supposed to. And then you have the people who will hate you because you don't follow their beliefs. Whether you're an atheist, different skin color, different religion, not straight, etc. they'll find a reason to hate you and ostracize you, and will sometimes condone violence against you. And the best part is that it's usually cherrypicking. They'll say something about how gay marriage is wrong, yet shellfish is absolutely delicious, when both of those "sins" come from the same section of the Bible. It's absolutely senseless.

But I think the worst part is that there's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that religion, more specifically someone's views on it, will never stop being a weapon. There's always going to be someone who won't accept another person's beliefs, and then take it to the next step. It's just a horrifying thought.

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 07:36 PM
I think it's more than possible to free the world from religion.

This isn't a "believe as I do".
It's "there is no Santa Claus, so grow up."

Even Mother Terressa was a horrid, cruel women, thanks to her "beliefs."
she forced children to suffer, without medication, because it would bring them closer to god.

Religions, to be clear, in my purview, are cults that demand worship of a deity.
I recognize there are some that fall outside this narrow definition, but so far, the holistic, spiritual types haven't really made waves in the way that the Abrahamic cults have.

All the arguing aside, I still have respect for Duckie, I'll say it again. I will never respect the Wiccan thing, it's silly, but to be fair, I'm a grown ass man who watches TMNT. That is VERY silly. I argue about red undies - even sillier.
I'm self aware enough to know, I've got my share of Peter Pan-ism's.

I'm big enough to admit when a thing is silly. You have to be as an adult.

@bublyshell - Your dad's stroke was probably caused by many things, I'm sorry you've had to endure that. It might feel like karma, but that opens up arguments we probably don't want to have about "fair".
If theres on thing I know about life, it's not ever fair. If it was, we wouldn't need religions in the first place.

Commenter 42
08-17-2016, 07:38 PM
Not sure if you're referring to me or not, but be assured I'm not against you. I'm all for keeping this discussion civil and not hostile.

No, that had nothing to do with you. I like you. :)

Foombamaroom
08-17-2016, 09:45 PM
I think it's more than possible to free the world from religion.

This isn't a "believe as I do".
It's "there is no Santa Claus, so grow up."

1, Santa is totally real.

But in all seriousness, religion's always going to be a thing. It's not even that people feel so strongly about their religion, it's that people are raised to feel so strongly about their religion. ****-faced daddies and mommies who think they're so high and mighty tell their kids what they believe, and how everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Again, if someone's religious and they're reading this, I'm not necessarily talking about you. If you believe in a god or set of gods, go for it. Live your life. But if you tell someone you hate them because your religion, more specifically your parent(s), commands you to, well, then I'm talking about you.

TheCanadiandrome
08-18-2016, 12:51 AM
I'm personally somewhere between an agnostic an an atheist (My views, TLDR: Not sure if anything comes afterwards, so I'm focusing on this life that I know I have.) but I went to a Catholic school for a big chunk of my life. I have friends who believe in God, and I had friends who believe in God.

I'll zone in on Catholicism for a moment; the whole message that's taught is to love everyone. And yes, some Catholics carry out that message and love people like they're supposed to. And then you have the people who will hate you because you don't follow their beliefs. Whether you're an atheist, different skin color, different religion, not straight, etc. they'll find a reason to hate you and ostracize you, and will sometimes condone violence against you. And the best part is that it's usually cherrypicking. They'll say something about how gay marriage is wrong, yet shellfish is absolutely delicious, when both of those "sins" come from the same section of the Bible. It's absolutely senseless.

But I think the worst part is that there's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that religion, more specifically someone's views on it, will never stop being a weapon. There's always going to be someone who won't accept another person's beliefs, and then take it to the next step. It's just a horrifying thought.

Sums me up nicely dude thanks :lol:

Commenter 42
08-18-2016, 01:18 AM
But if you tell someone you hate them because your religion, more specifically your parent(s), commands you to, well, then I'm talking about you.


^^ #allreligionsareguiltyofthis

Sorry about Santa. :ohwell:

plastroncafe
08-18-2016, 08:30 AM
But I think the worst part is that there's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that religion, more specifically someone's views on it, will never stop being a weapon. There's always going to be someone who won't accept another person's beliefs, and then take it to the next step. It's just a horrifying thought.

This is always the case, this has always been the case, this will always be the case. Even if you remove religion from the equation this will still be true. There are atheists who do this exact same thing, have the exact same level of intolerance, and are willing to have other people pay the ultimate price.

We should not Overlook the fact that much of secular culture is still flavored buy religious culture. Even if the people who live in that secular culture are not religious or are atheist. American culture, whether we want to admit it or not, is flavored Christian.

There's not a doubt in my mind that much of the violence we chalk up to being religious in nature elsewhere, is really secular violence that exists within that flavored culture.

Foombamaroom
08-18-2016, 09:38 AM
This is always the case, this has always been the case, this will always be the case. Even if you remove religion from the equation this will still be true. There are atheists who do this exact same thing, have the exact same level of intolerance, and are willing to have other people pay the ultimate price.

We should not Overlook the fact that much of secular culture is still flavored buy religious culture. Even if the people who live in that secular culture are not religious or are atheist. American culture, whether we want to admit it or not, is flavored Christian.

There's not a doubt in my mind that much of the violence we chalk up to being religious in nature elsewhere, is really secular violence that exists within that flavored culture.
Oh, atheists do this without a doubt, too. The problem with religious debates is that usually the person who initiates a debate only wants to have their side listened to, and quite frankly doesn't give a damn about what the other side has to say.

Now, if you want to have an exchange of ideologies where you try to understand the other person's beliefs while trying to make them understand yours, more power to you. But if you're entering it with the sole purpose of making sure that they see that you're correct, and they're 100% wrong, then you shouldn't be participating in it at all.

Another problem is just how uneducated people are in these debates. If you have research and evidence to back your claims up, then you're doing something right. One of my biggest pieces of evidence in debates against religion is the Bible. Too many inconsistencies to follow. But a lot of people say, "Yeah, the Bible's inconsistent." and haven't read the Bible cover to cover.

If you're going to debate someone, make sure you actually know what you're talking about so you don't make yourself look like an idiot or an a-hole.

^^ #allreligionsareguiltyofthis

Sorry about Santa. :ohwell:

Shhhhhhh. The only thing that keeps me sane is the thought of a jolly fat man delivering presents one night a year.

plastroncafe
08-18-2016, 09:46 AM
Oh, atheists do this without a doubt, too. The problem with religious debates is that usually the person who initiates a debate only wants to have their side listened to, and quite frankly doesn't give a damn about what the other side has to say.

Now, if you want to have an exchange of ideologies where you try to understand the other person's beliefs while trying to make them understand yours, more power to you. But if you're entering it with the sole purpose of making sure that they see that you're correct, and they're 100% wrong, then you shouldn't be participating in it at all.

Another problem is just how uneducated people are in these debates. If you have research and evidence to back your claims up, then you're doing something right. One of my biggest pieces of evidence in debates against religion is the Bible. Too many inconsistencies to follow. But a lot of people say, "Yeah, the Bible's inconsistent." and haven't read the Bible cover to cover.

If you're going to debate someone, make sure you actually know what you're talking about so you don't make yourself look like an idiot or an a-hole.


To this end I would highly recommend the book, "Religious Literacy."

Commenter 42
08-18-2016, 01:54 PM
Respect genital mutilation. it's perfectly normal.

Respect molestation. again, totally normal.

Respect me and drink this kool-aid, you'll be with us in the afterlife.

We all have a right to 72 virgins, if you blow yourself up for Allah.

Anyone who doesn't follow these rules is damned. Better be good.

Sex is wrong, until you get married, then figure it out.

Gays are going to hell.

No such thing as Global warming.

The day the red heifer is born will bring about the end times.

Fighting the infidels on our own land, will bring judgement day.

Pay your penance, and all sins are forgiven.

The path to good intentions, is always paved in gold:

http://d28septx7rf3dp.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/Depositphotos_59714843_m_0.jpg

https://thestockandpillory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pope-gold-pearls1.jpg


But Plastron is right, secular folks are guilty too.

MsMarvelDuckie
08-18-2016, 02:55 PM
And yet religion of ALL kinds has also given us some of history's most magnificent works of art, not to mention great works of charity, and wasn't this country FOUNDED on freedom of religion? It's truly a double-edged sword to speak of it as simply dangerous or "bad" because then you also discount all the GOOD that can come of it. Like the Sistine ceiling. Commissioned by the Pope, no less. (And Michelangelo's feelings toward DOING it notwithstanding, it WAS a labor of love, and his greatest masterpiece.) And there are countless other examples. Walk through any museum of art or culture, and I guarantee that half (if not more) of what is there will have religious themes, or have been created for or by a member of a particular faith. Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, etc.....

Our greatest cultural achievements have always walked hand-in-hand with our beliefs. As it should be, for such works are inspiring to others to make such achievements themselves. How many aspiring artists first picked up a paintbrush or chisel because they saw the depictions of ancient gods, or of biblical figures, and were awed? Or how many humanitarians were inspired to their deeds by their faith? One can't just say faith is dangerous without also looking at the OTHER side of that coin. At the good it can do when used properly.

ToTheNines
08-18-2016, 03:00 PM
Respect genital mutilation. it's perfectly normal.

Respect molestation. again, totally normal.

Respect me and drink this kool-aid, you'll be with us in the afterlife.

We all have a right to 72 virgins, if you blow yourself up for Allah.

Anyone who doesn't follow these rules is damned. Better be good.

Sex is wrong, until you get married, then figure it out.

Gays are going to hell.

No such thing as Global warming.

The day the red heifer is born will bring about the end times.

Fighting the infidels on our own land, will bring judgement day.

Pay your penance, and all sins are forgiven.

The path to good intentions, is always paved in gold:

http://d28septx7rf3dp.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/Depositphotos_59714843_m_0.jpg

https://thestockandpillory.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pope-gold-pearls1.jpg


But Plastron is right, secular folks are guilty too.

I love you, man.

Commenter 42
08-19-2016, 02:16 PM
Proof of Irony, nothing more. (http://deadstate.org/guy-who-says-god-sends-natural-disasters-to-punish-gays-has-his-home-destroyed-in-a-natural-disaster/)

Still I'm sure the deists in the room will pin it on Sky Dad's sense of humor.

BubblyShell22
08-20-2016, 12:47 PM
Duckie, yes, I tend to see things from both a logical and karmic point of view in why things happen for a reason and it seems to work out pretty well for me. I also strongly believe that bad things come in threes because it has happened more than once in my life so I definitely don't dismiss it though I do believe good things come in threes as well.

Commenter, life definitely isn't fair, but we just have to roll with the punches the best we can and do what we feel is best and karma will reward us in the end. That's how I feel anyway and thanks for the sympathies as this definitely isn't easy for us to deal with.

I do feel that even if you take away religion, there are still political wars that can happen in life and that's never a good thing so think about that for a minute.

ToTheNines
08-20-2016, 02:45 PM
Proof of Irony, nothing more. (http://deadstate.org/guy-who-says-god-sends-natural-disasters-to-punish-gays-has-his-home-destroyed-in-a-natural-disaster/)

Still I'm sure the deists in the room will pin it on Sky Dad's sense of humor.

Lol, what a knucklef*ck. He probably beat one of his kids since surely one of them was the homo responsible for that.

FredWolfLeonardo
06-15-2017, 03:05 PM
My apologies for bumping this thread.

Recently, there's been alot of off topic religious discussion in other threads and while there's nothing wrong with it as long as it is done in a civilized way, there is a time and place for everything.

So if you wanna have a religious discussion here (no bashing of course), then this is the place to do it rather than clogging up other threads.

IndigoErth
06-15-2017, 03:11 PM
I'm impressed that a thread of this topic managed to get to 10 pages and still remains unlocked.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
06-15-2017, 03:12 PM
This thread was dead for more than three days.

Oh, and I'm sorry I thought you were C42, FWL. :trazz:

FredWolfLeonardo
06-15-2017, 03:12 PM
I'm impressed that a thread of this topic managed to get to 10 pages and still remains unlocked.

And got Machias' approval :)

This thread was dead for more than three days.

Oh, and I'm sorry I thought you were C42, FWL. :trazz:

So I debated myself extensively for 5 pages? :lol:

Machias Banshee
06-15-2017, 07:30 PM
Well, the first ten pages were actual discussion and not mud slinging and arguments. If it continues that way, we can keep it going. After what I just saw happen in a couple other threads, I'm not so sure...


It's up to you, people...

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy
06-15-2017, 08:35 PM
And got Machias' approval :)

So I debated myself extensively for 5 pages? :lol:

Imagine how much more paranoid I'd be if I ever smoked weed. :trazz:

In my defense, we HAD been going through a rash of bogus accounts...

But yeah, you seem to be on the up and up and I owed you a "sorry" earlier. So, sorry. :tsmile:

Coola Yagami
06-15-2017, 08:44 PM
I'm Catholic, and I do believe in God and that He is the ultimate in all that is good. I belief all the crimes and violence caused 'in the name of God' is due to humans being... well... stupid humans that choose to interpret the Bible as they see fit.

I don't think any of us knows the meaning of life until we meet our maker, but for the time being, the meaning is just to live it because you truly only get one chance to live it.

Original TMNT Cartoon Fan
06-17-2017, 12:29 PM
I'm Catholic, and I do believe in God and that He is the ultimate in all that is good. I belief all the crimes and violence caused 'in the name of God' is due to humans being... well... stupid humans that choose to interpret the Bible as they see fit.

During the Middle Ages, it was wealth and money (Crusades). Today's there's inter-Christian violence, usually Protestants against Roman Catholic.

turtle1237
06-23-2017, 11:41 PM
And yet religion of ALL kinds has also given us some of history's most magnificent works of art, not to mention great works of charity, and wasn't this country FOUNDED on freedom of religion? It's truly a double-edged sword to speak of it as simply dangerous or "bad" because then you also discount all the GOOD that can come of it. Like the Sistine ceiling. Commissioned by the Pope, no less. (And Michelangelo's feelings toward DOING it notwithstanding, it WAS a labor of love, and his greatest masterpiece.) And there are countless other examples. Walk through any museum of art or culture, and I guarantee that half (if not more) of what is there will have religious themes, or have been created for or by a member of a particular faith. Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, etc.....

Our greatest cultural achievements have always walked hand-in-hand with our beliefs. As it should be, for such works are inspiring to others to make such achievements themselves. How many aspiring artists first picked up a paintbrush or chisel because they saw the depictions of ancient gods, or of biblical figures, and were awed? Or how many humanitarians were inspired to their deeds by their faith? One can't just say faith is dangerous without also looking at the OTHER side of that coin. At the good it can do when used properly.

Yeah I collect a lot of Greek statues. Zeus, Athena, Hercules, Venus, Apollo, even dying Achilles. Niko was my lateness. Today we look at the ancient Greek status as art, but back in the day these status were pretty much the Roman Greek bible so to speak.
The Greeks believe Man was made in the image of the Gods hench why most Greek Gods have human form, not Dogs on the bodies of man, or Bulls on the bodies of Lions or something like that. But the Gods were Human like beings and thus had human flaws which I find impressive. Zeus and his women, Hera and her rage. ETE. Not even the Heroes were perfect, all had a human flaw.

MsMarvelDuckie
06-24-2017, 12:24 PM
Yup and some people still do! (Like me.) Religious images are among some of the most inspiring and beautiful artworks ever created. Who could see Da Vinci's Last Supper or Michelangelo's David or Pieta and not be awed and moved? Or the Venus de Milo (it was Aphrodite after all) or the triptychs (sp?) of the Middle Ages?