Religion

I remember when a good friend of mine who was into all that death metal satan bollocks had a spiritual experience whilst laid flat out in the park and under the influence of double dipped LSD. The ground tore open and there was satan whilst at the same time the clouds parted revealing the havens with god peering down and poor Gary wondered where he now fitted into the grand scheme of things. He reported back his vision to the group which had put a big question mark on his pro satanic activities. We sat around a table in the collage canteen to debate such a findings and religion as a whole so after a spliff and a few rounds of butterd toast we created our own passive religion called Omnilism which was basically a belief in anything and everything.

Seemed like a revelation at the time.

Wow! Omnilism sounds like a very admirable philopsohy! You hit on a good point though because your friend had apersonal experience of the irrational and revelatory later he was able to synthesize the vision (and its symbols) into system! brilliiant!

-infinite regress.. so there must also be infinite progress too no?

-I believe the big bang to be the effect or action of God,Paradox,Uknown(heh),Contrast,Monad...The product of that which is uncomprehensible to me.

i feel more comfortable with what i'd call "scientific optimism" regarding the cause of big bang, meaning that currently we don't have the means to comprehend this phenomenon but in the future we might. not long ago people thought that the earth is flat after all.

  On 4/18/2012 at 6:52 PM, gmanyo said:

The Jesus, lunatic, liar argument is a sort of three-way false dilemma. I think the common belief among atheists is that he was a real person, possibly even crucified, but the stories about him are mostly false.

No no no. I wasn't addressing atheists, I was addressing you. Our belief in Jesus is centered on the belief in the divine inspiration of scripture. Why even say anything about Jesus if we can't trust scriptures as a historical document of his life? Besides artifacts, the only way anyone has ever known anything about people in history is through writings, up until the 19th century with photography and such. If you place any merit in your faith in Jesus, that faith comes from your understanding of scripture. If he said the things he said in the Bible and was just a normal person and didn't rise from the dead, then the Jesus lunatic liar argument is 100% sound. I'm not directing this at you, but why create a version of Jesus that allows you to live how you want? Why not just dismiss it all together? Makes much more sense.

  Quote

Also, I think that that interpretation of Rev 3:16 is incorrect. Back in Roman times, there were these great hot springs and great cold springs in different locations (not going to bother telling cities; don't want to get that far into it). These were both really good. Laodicea, however, had no natural water sources, and had to pump water in from aqueducts. By the time it reached the city, it was lukewarm and really gross. "Hot" and "cold" are both good things in this passage; I think they refer to different talents and purposes within the church. The whole "either be all for it or all against it" thing is not only not in the passage, but also a bit off anyway; it's better to be a Christian who doesn't follow much than to be someone who hates Christianity.

What does lukewarm represent then? Thats the crux of the passage. All your explanation does is give insight into why that language was used. This is Jesus speaking to Laodicea, basically saying that they make him sick. The delineation between what hot is and what cold is do not matter at all. What matters is the meaning of lukewarm, because that is something that you do not want to be, and it is clear if you read on in the passage. It's not that it's better to be completely lost than to only have some belief-that is not what I was saying.

Verse 18 says: "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness." Then verse 19 says: "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent." This passage is addressing believers who are not pleasing to God. It is certainly not talking about different talents in the church. Thats in 1 Corinthians 12 when Paul talks about spiritual gifts.

And if you think the whole "either be all for it or all against it" is off, is it not better to hate christianity and be true to yourself than to believe in it and not follow it? But I'm not condemning lukewarm christians, because that's a state that I have found myself in many times. Philippians 2 has some encouragement for the lukewarm: "¹ If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ² then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose."

Also, read Matthew 12:30: "Whoever is not with me is against me." So the question is, what does the bible say being "with" Jesus looks like? That is the standard we as christians should measure ourselves against.

  On 4/22/2012 at 3:13 AM, sheatheman said:

  On 4/18/2012 at 6:52 PM, gmanyo said:

The Jesus, lunatic, liar argument is a sort of three-way false dilemma. I think the common belief among atheists is that he was a real person, possibly even crucified, but the stories about him are mostly false.

No no no. I wasn't addressing atheists, I was addressing you. Our belief in Jesus is centered on the belief in the divine inspiration of scripture. Why even say anything about Jesus if we can't trust scriptures as a historical document of his life? Besides artifacts, the only way anyone has ever known anything about people in history is through writings, up until the 19th century with photography and such. If you place any merit in your faith in Jesus, that faith comes from your understanding of scripture. If he said the things he said in the Bible and was just a normal person and didn't rise from the dead, then the Jesus lunatic liar argument is 100% sound. I'm not directing this at you, but why create a version of Jesus that allows you to live how you want? Why not just dismiss it all together? Makes much more sense.

 

  Quote

Also, I think that that interpretation of Rev 3:16 is incorrect. Back in Roman times, there were these great hot springs and great cold springs in different locations (not going to bother telling cities; don't want to get that far into it). These were both really good. Laodicea, however, had no natural water sources, and had to pump water in from aqueducts. By the time it reached the city, it was lukewarm and really gross. "Hot" and "cold" are both good things in this passage; I think they refer to different talents and purposes within the church. The whole "either be all for it or all against it" thing is not only not in the passage, but also a bit off anyway; it's better to be a Christian who doesn't follow much than to be someone who hates Christianity.

 

What does lukewarm represent then? Thats the crux of the passage. All your explanation does is give insight into why that language was used. This is Jesus speaking to Laodicea, basically saying that they make him sick. The delineation between what hot is and what cold is do not matter at all. What matters is the meaning of lukewarm, because that is something that you do not want to be, and it is clear if you read on in the passage. It's not that it's better to be completely lost than to only have some belief-that is not what I was saying.

 

Verse 18 says: "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness." Then verse 19 says: "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent." This passage is addressing believers who are not pleasing to God. It is certainly not talking about different talents in the church. Thats in 1 Corinthians 12 when Paul talks about spiritual gifts.

 

And if you think the whole "either be all for it or all against it" is off, is it not better to hate christianity and be true to yourself than to believe in it and not follow it? But I'm not condemning lukewarm christians, because that's a state that I have found myself in many times. Philippians 2 has some encouragement for the lukewarm: "¹ If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ² then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose."

 

Also, read Matthew 12:30: "Whoever is not with me is against me." So the question is, what does the bible say being "with" Jesus looks like? That is the standard we as christians should measure ourselves against.

Yeah, I mean all you have to do is trust that historical document that is the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Oh. Shit.

@candiru just say what you mean. i'm immune to irony and sarcasm right now.

That just seems like a gross oversimplification..

Is it not normal that certain concepts are percieved in many differing ways? If we were to all draw the same object wouldnt all our drawings being different even if only slightly? Honestly at the end of the day I think your guys very different beliefs are beautiful.

  On 4/22/2012 at 3:55 AM, DotRR said:

That just seems like a gross oversimplification..

Is it not normal that certain concepts are percieved in many differing ways? If we were to all draw the same object wouldnt all our drawings being different even if only slightly? Honestly at the end of the day I think your guys very different beliefs are beautiful.

what does?

Sorry! I was refering to that "poster"

  On 4/22/2012 at 4:30 AM, DotRR said:

Sorry! I was refering to that "poster"

I respect others opinions when it is opinion that they are stating. What I won't accept is statement of false factual information. I also will not accept invalid logic. Opinions are fine, but if you won't back up your logic then stfu. Also if you're flat out asserting opinion as fact, stfu. As much as I will always do my best to get along with people, no matter how religious, I find that almost ALL religious people are guilty of these two evils.

@ sheatherman: I meant what I said...

  On 4/22/2012 at 4:58 AM, thehauntingsoul said:

I respect others opinions when it is opinion that they are stating. What I won't accept is statement of false factual information. I also will not accept invalid logic. Opinions are fine, but if you won't back up your logic then stfu. Also if you're flat out asserting opinion as fact, stfu. As much as I will always do my best to get along with people, no matter how religious, I find that almost ALL religious people are guilty of these two evils.

i like you Haunting soul.

  On 4/22/2012 at 3:13 AM, sheatheman said:

What does lukewarm represent then? Thats the crux of the passage. All your explanation does is give insight into why that language was used. This is Jesus speaking to Laodicea, basically saying that they make him sick. The delineation between what hot is and what cold is do not matter at all. What matters is the meaning of lukewarm, because that is something that you do not want to be, and it is clear if you read on in the passage. It's not that it's better to be completely lost than to only have some belief-that is not what I was saying.

That's fine then.

  On 4/22/2012 at 4:58 AM, thehauntingsoul said:

I respect others opinions when it is opinion that they are stating. What I won't accept is statement of false factual information. I also will not accept invalid logic. Opinions are fine, but if you won't back up your logic then stfu. Also if you're flat out asserting opinion as fact, stfu. As much as I will always do my best to get along with people, no matter how religious, I find that almost ALL religious people are guilty of these two evils.

Where do you place Faith Assertions? What about Inuitive logic?

.

  On 4/22/2012 at 6:09 AM, DotRR said:

  On 4/22/2012 at 4:58 AM, thehauntingsoul said:

I respect others opinions when it is opinion that they are stating. What I won't accept is statement of false factual information. I also will not accept invalid logic. Opinions are fine, but if you won't back up your logic then stfu. Also if you're flat out asserting opinion as fact, stfu. As much as I will always do my best to get along with people, no matter how religious, I find that almost ALL religious people are guilty of these two evils.

 

Where do you place Faith Assertions? What about Inuitive logic?

so, faith assertions probably don't have objective evidence to back them up, so that's out.

intuitive logic? what's that mean? when something just feels or sounds right to you? yeah, that's not logic. just because your brain makes you think something is correct doesn't mean it's correct. people are so egocentric, lol.

but if that's not what you meant, i apologize and am open to correction.

if you google "he inserted his vagina" or simply "inserted his vagina" you get a googlewhack (only 1 result). I know a googlewhack is really supposed to be a combo of two words found anywhere on the page but it's still a good find imo. Anyway, this is basically why i am not religious.

  On 4/22/2012 at 7:21 PM, Rambo said:

if you google "he inserted his vagina" or simply "inserted his vagina" you get a googlewhack (only 1 result). I know a googlewhack is really supposed to be a combo of two words found anywhere on the page but it's still a good find imo. Anyway, this is basically why i am not religious.

  On 4/22/2012 at 5:31 AM, DotRR said:

@ sheatherman: I meant what I said...

  Quote

Analytical thinking erodes belief in God

• 19:00 26 April 2012 by Debora MacKenzie
  
• For similar stories, visit the The Human Brain Topic Guide
  

 

 

Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein famously did not believe in a supernatural God, and neither do some scientists today. It now appears there may be a good reason for this: thinking analytically dims supernatural beliefs, apparently by opposing the intuitive thought processes that underpin them.

The vast majority of people believe in a supernatural god or gods, says social psychologist

Ara Norenzayan

of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of atheists and agnostics who do not. While scientists have begun to study the

psychology of belief

, we know little about what causes disbelief.

Humans use two separate cognitive systems for processing information: one that is fast, emotional and intuitive, and another that is slower and more analytical.

The first system innately imputes purpose, personality or mental states to objects, leading to supernatural beliefs. People who rely more on intuitive thinking are more likely to be believers, while the more analytical are less likely. This doesn't necessarily mean analytical thinking causes disbelief, but activating analytical thinking can override the intuitive system – and vice versa. Norenzayan used this to test the causal relationship.

 

 

Analytical priming

His student Will Gervais asked 93 university students to rate their own belief in God and other supernatural agents such as angels. Then, several weeks later, they underwent "priming" for analytical thinking – they were asked to unscramble sentences that included words such as "ponder" and "rational", read text written in hard-to-read fonts, or even just look at a picture of Rodin's sculpture

The Thinker

.

Controls were given less analytically charged tasks: looking at Myron's

Discobolus

, or

The Discus Thrower

, unscrambling sentences containing words such as "shoes", or read text written in easy-to-read fonts.

Norenzayan and Gervais then asked the students to again rate their supernatural beliefs. The students who had been exposed to analytical priming consistently downgraded their belief in the supernatural, regardless of their previous degree of belief. This was also true of 148 adults tested online.

The simplest way to explain these effects, the team conclude, is if intuitive thinking leads to belief, and analytical thinking suppresses or overrides this process. That gives analytical thinking a causal role in disbelief.

"Our results suggest that habitual analytical thinking could be one reason scientists tend to be disbelievers," notes Norenzaya. It also suggests that – as some religious people fear – exposure to science may erode belief, not just through discoveries such as evolution, but just by promoting analytical thinking.

But before secularists start putting copies of

The Thinker

in classrooms, Norenzaya warns that it isn't so simple. "Many things promote religious belief", such as fear of death, he says. "You can't turn a devout believer into an atheist just by encouraging analytical thinking. Other factors will sustain belief."

Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1215647

LOL i love the journal name.

DotRR, I had a lengthy response to your earlier stuff in this thread on panentheism...been readin up on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3X5f3gY4iw&feature=related

LMAO

  On 4/29/2012 at 3:07 PM, yanG said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3X5f3gY4iw&feature=related

 

LMAO

Fucking brilliant.

it's fun to make up your own religions.