Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (7628)	4/8/2002 11:46:41 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

That is a very interesting and provocative post, JC, as I can find little in it that I disagree with. I'm looking forward to seeing thoughtful reaction from the number of secularists here who seem to have so much to say about others' religious beliefs.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (7628)	4/8/2002 11:49:30 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Excellent post JC.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (7628)	4/8/2002 12:32:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

This illustrates our failure to communicate. It is fascinating and perplexing how total the failure to communicate on this subject can be. Totally different frames of reference, it seems. I find it utterly compelling to try to bridge the gap. A religious person believes they were created for a purpose, which is to serve their God. Fine. And I was created, too, and I assume that I'm just here and what I make of that is up to me. So far, so good. Through eons of thought by philosophers and religionists, and from claimed revelations, there exists a body of wisdom as to what God expects of us; wisdom as to what is right and what is moral (e.g., the ten commandments). In the end, a believer in God has the free will to act upon their own innate conception of how they should serve God. Like I don't do that? This reminds me of the triangulation discussion with Jewel. We look to whatever sources we have to figure out what we should do with these wonderful lives that we have. You may do that to serve God and I may do that to determine what to make of it all and how to proceed. The exercise is the same. I may discard "claimed revelations" or assume them to be made up by humans for some purpose or other. And I may not pray. Maybe I meditate, instead. Seems to me that the processes that believers and non-believers go through are much more alike than different. One of them involves a deity and the other doesn't. People could theoretically reach the same bottom line either way, one thinking he got it from God and the other thinking he got it from sorting through this collected wisdom. Of course, it is always possible to simply choose not to think about the subject at all. Of course. I imagine that some do. My thought was that any person who does not believe in God would have to subscribe to all of these tenets to be intellectually consistent. I see nothing pejorative in any of them I don't find them pejorative. Just off base. For example, why would you assume that life choices should be governed by the needs of society? I find them exceedingly personal. There's nothing more personal. Life choices we make for ourselves, in consultation with our God, if we so choose. Society can mind its own business. When the existence of God is denied, a vacuum is created which must be filled with an countervailing credo. Which brings us back to your vacuum. You took exception to describing religion as a collection of morals, institutions, traditions, etc. But those are what's on your list. Those are the things you offer as vacuum fillers. If the traditions, myths, etc. aren't religion, as you say, and religion is simply the "ego" thing of belief in God or lack of belief, then there's no vacuum to fill.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (7628)	4/8/2002 12:48:27 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

The defining characteristic of the religious is their belief in God, not their membership in a particular religion. So let's see, if you're a citizen, you're a citizen and it makes no difference what country you're a citizen of.... Iraq, Communist China, USSR, USA. Why's that important anyway? You've got a gov't that you can believe in. Isn't that enough? I thibk you're trying to sweep too much under the rug here. is an explanation of the nature of Homo sapiens. The same claim can be made of evolution. You are the end product of a long, long series of successes and failures as life adapted to this planet. Religion tells us who we are, what we are, and why we are. It may tell you who you are, what you are, why you are, but it also tells me: It tells me you are superstitious. To be "religious" means first and foremost that you submit your ego to the existence of God. You obviously have met some of the egotistical religious people I have. They submit their ego to nothing. You don't have to go to church to be religious; you don't have to belong to any religious institution; you don't have to subscribe to any set of dogma or religious tenets. You just have to believe in God. The defining characteristic of the religious is their belief in God, not their membership in a particular religion. Variant of the "I define who a Christian is" argument. If I claim to be a Christian (or an atheist) and I set out to convince you of this, do you really think you could tell I am not. Does only God know who Chistians are? What if there is no God? Do Christians then not exist? there exists a body of wisdom as to what God expects of us; wisdom as to what is right and what is moral (e.g., the ten commandments) The ten commandments are Judeo-Christian. What of the thousands of other religions? Where is their counterpart in the Greek Pantheon? When the existence of God is denied, a vacuum is created which must be filled with an countervailing credo. The fact that societies need a set of rules does NOT mean God exists. PERIOD.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (7628)	4/8/2002 5:39:16 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 21057

"the most important thing we get from religion, many, many more times important that the items you list ... is an explanation of the nature of Homo sapiens" By "we" you, of course mean the members of your particular religious group. What sect do you belong to, and what is your unique take on the "nature of Homo Sapiens"? Do people have a "soul" in your particular religious sect? All of them or just certain ones? "Religion tells us who we are, what we are, and why we are." Again, what are the specific beliefs of your particular sect on these questions? "To be "religious" means first and foremost that you submit your ego to the existence of God" This is not a definition of "religious". It may be a requirement of the sect which you belong to. "The defining characteristic of the religious is their belief in God, not their membership in a particular religion." That is true. But it tells us nothing about their value system and moral beliefs; nor the social aims or prejudices which inform their thought or behaviour. "Being an atheist does not mean that you do not go to church. It does not mean that you don't belong to a religious institutio" That is correct. An atheist is allowed to attend many religious services provided he or she meets whatever inclusionary terms are being enforced by the proponents of that religion. "I think you might be surprised at how often such people are woefully ignorant of the dogma of their own church, or how often they employ a menu technique as to which of its tenets they believe or obey Yes. Some believers in God are moral relativists. It might seem contradictory, but, as you say...people are often quite ignorant of the religion they belong to, and what it stands for. s obscures the true and essential meaning of being a religious person. It doesn't obscure anything. If the only thing YOU mean byclaiming you are religious is that YOU believe in a creator, then the only thing anybody will rationally argue or debate with you is whether THAT belief is rational. If you support that belief with mythology then the person debating you will obviously examine the credibility of your premises. "A religious person believes they were created for a purpose, which is to serve their God" If you believe in a God (rather than simply profess one), you need to know the manner in which that God is to be "served". If you neither know nor care, then your "belief" seems rather empty and boring... In order to know what a particular sect believes in this regard, you need to read or incorporate their dogma. "When the existence of God is denied, a vacuum is created which must be filled with an countervailing credo. Of course, it is always possible to simply choose not to think about the subject at all" LOL! I think you are demonstrating a remarkable persistence at proving that your latter point is possible of realization! The only vacuum in the eschewal of the existence of God is a supernatural vacuum. As people are incapable of either understanding, experiencing or agreeing on the "supernatural" (ahem)...such a "vacuum" is embraced by those whom wish their values to reflect a regard for humanity rather than spirits.