• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Legitimacy of believing

However I think it is necessary to point out that Christopher Hitchens often spoke positively about Baruch Spinoza and pantheism. Which is to say that perhaps he was open to the idea of viewing nature/the material universe as God.

my belief is that there is a true reality that exists and its totally independent of my perception. it doesnt care about me, im not special. it seems to me your point is that you can make up your own reality in your head and thats as good as being true.

I agree with this. There is got to be something in this world that is solid and independent of our perception as you said.
 
^No need to be sorry lol.

I think Pantheism makes more sense than any religion. As Henry David Thoreau said "We are surrounded by a rich fertile mystery." Who is to say that that mystery is something supernatural? There is enough in this world to keep us occupied we don't need fantasies as well which IMO detract from the infinite beauty of this world.

The heart of Pantheist philosophy is a belief in the sanctity of Nature. This means that we hold reverence for the inconceivable evolutionary processes that created us; for the unfolding of the stars in the Universe and the life on our home planet Earth. In short--we put our faith in our Creator--meaning not only all past events and shapes and patterns, but also the now, for Creation is a continuing process and exists within us and around us this very instant.

Harold W. Wood, Jr., Editor, Pantheist Vision
 
i always feel that with pantheism, if youre goint to call 'the universe' or 'nature' 'god', then you might as well just call them 'nature' and the 'universe'. im happy to call the universe god though but all ive done is redefine the word.
 
^True but I feel like saying that we are simply redefining the word god is a little too easy and dismissive. Not that I'm saying we should start worshiping nature or anything but perhaps we should show some reverence.
 
i always feel that with pantheism, if youre goint to call 'the universe' or 'nature' 'god', then you might as well just call them 'nature' and the 'universe'. im happy to call the universe god though but all ive done is redefine the word.

The english word Nature is already a re-definition of the word Physis (Greek: φύσις) which had in early Greek philosophy a religious connation, the word physis (in pre-socratic Philosophy) representing some kind of sacred natural process or immanent Intelligence (Nous, Logos); such an understanding is opposed to the modern view on nature, which sees nature as something mechanical which can be reduced to a system of relations. It's not about re-defining a word, it's about experiencing nature differently. If you only want to look at it reductively, as nothing more than atoms swirling in absolute space then the name 'pantheism' doesn't add anything. If you want to look at it as a sacred source of inspiration, beauty and creativity, then the name 'pantheism' makes more sense. It's really not about the word: it's about how one experiences Nature or the Universe.
 
Last edited:
@ YellowPolkaDotHalo You are a Christian and therefore a part of a religion. I don't get how a person can claim to dislike religion and yet be a part of one. It seems... oh whats that word you used? Oh right hypocritical.

Worshiping a particular God/gods is religion. Being a Christian makes you a part of the Christian religion. Its really a case of whether you are or you're not.

You're just goading here, admit it. If you're being entirely serious, then I'm pretty unimpressed with this kind of black-or-white thinking. This is not mathematics or formal logic we're talking about here; this is the complex, many-layered, and highly personal task known as constructing a worldview or finding one's place in the universe. Pat, cut-and-dried statements like yours I just quoted show very little appreciation for the personal and interpersonal complexity of this task. Simply put, who are you to tell someone else how to self-identify and what to call themselves? That's as much YPH's birthright as it is yours.

Religion is pretty similar to ethnicity -- it's people. You belong to a religion once you socially affiliate with people and validate their metaphysical worldview, and they in turn accept you as one of their own. Spirituality, on the other hand, is personal belief, minus the effects it has on the way you socialize.

One can most certainly have a spirituality that has something to do with Jesus, but not self-identify as a Christian. I've met plenty of people who say they have no problem with Jesus or his teachings, but have a lot of problems with his fan clubs and how they behave. I've even met fans of Jesus who interpret his teachings as being rather opposed to organized religion, and are certain Jesus would never endorse any of the institutions that now bear his name.

I second the opinion that CoffeeDrinker makes the most sense of any major participant in this thread.
 
@ YellowPolkaDotHalo You are a Christian and therefore a part of a religion. I don't get how a person can claim to dislike religion and yet be a part of one. It seems... oh whats that word you used? Oh right hypocritical.

Worshiping a particular God/gods is religion. Being a Christian makes you a part of the Christian religion. Its really a case of whether you are or you're not.

Yes I am a Christian and am very much part of the the Church as body. I'm at home at several different churches. My Mums an Anglican .. her church is very much a high church,, all the incence, organ music, sung eucharist .. I love all that drama and atmosphere. I love the Eucharist.
I was very much part of a evangelican, charismatic church for about 8 years.. it taught me a lot and I have loads of friends there but I felt the spirit moving me from there. I still go periodically to see my friends and have a happy clap :D and jump around.. They have a fantastic live band. I feel very at home also in a lttle, gentle baptist church also.
Im not a baptist, an evangelical or and Anglican or maybe Im all three.. I dont know.. But I feel free and at peace with the way I do church.
I'm led by the spirit Freddy not a church or a religion although he speaks to me through both.

I love this verse:

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

I'm born of the spirit. Free of Law. A child of God in relationship with God.

I dont see the sentence 'I also dislike religion ( for religions sake) as hypocritical. I think you just feel bitter because I challenged you on an earlier post.
Dont be bitter its bad for your body and makes your face look ugly. :D
 
do you think its possible that the good times and fun and the nice feelings you get from going to church might be more attributable to the social aspects and the songs and the music rather that to the spirit or jesus. they are all things i know i love to do and give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside you could call spiritual.
 
legitimacy: the quality of being legitimate or valid; validity

is loving something concrete more valid than loving something abstract ?
like can you love "beauty" even tho beauty is in the eye of the beholder ?
can you love a abstract concept like art and be in a concrete relation with it ?
you may say that a painting is art but its not the painting itself its what it represent that is art "ceci n'est pas une pipe" and if you dont like that painting you might say; "that aint art thats crap!"
but can you be legitimate in loving art even tho "art is in the eye of the beholder" ?
so what if someone paints with his own poop ? some people will find it abject and wont allow it to be considered art because it doesnt fit with their model of what art is
like how some people could not see the blues as a valid art form some time ago because it was done by the wrong crowd

what im saying is that imo legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder
and like in those art discussion you end up with people who dont agree that there aint no true rule on what art is and is not because ultimately art is a subjective experience but still some people have to view it as having some kind of rule that needs to be followed or else it can be disqualified as true legitimate art
but then if you are following rules to get there how much of it is still art ? it becomes more of a painting by numbers kind of art, it becomes formalistic, it becomes entertainment if it aint free of convention imo
art for itself is free of form but you can divide art in different genre like music, dance, painting...and then you can divide those in different category...
and those different genre or category have rules to differentiate this from that and some people have rules to differentiate what art is and what its not but even tho those rules are simply their rules and even if they share it with a bunch of other people it doesnt make it valid to some others who share a different experience in regards to art
so what if picasso would have being a scatophile who like to paint with his own poop from time to time, to him it would be as valid as using a brown brush, so you would have his blue period and his brown period and no one would complain until someone would discover that he wasnt using paint in his brown period and what was once consider art by some would now be disqualified as being art because some people would now have a different experience when looking at those paintings
but some people wouldnt care if its poop or not, it still would be art to them
but that wouldnt change the mind of people who have decided it wasnt art anymore and if those people want to believe that art is something that they know more about than others making them the ruler of what is and what isnt art then they are gonna believe that they are right and others who dont agree are simply wrong
but art is as much a abstract concept as reality is, and it doesnt mater how much concrete the experience of holding a brush or a instrument is, or how you can feel sound on a physical level with your body, sound isnt music, what turns sound into music is your concept of what differentiate music from sound, which is to say art, so sound is concert but art is abstract, the painting is a concrete representation of a abstract concept
so it doesnt mater if reality is a concrete experience, its still a abstract concept

some people have real concrete experience with god, but it aint because its music to then that its gonna be anything else but sound to you, but in this case its more like a silence that they can ear as music, so that to you god will only be a abstract concept with no real concrete experience attach to it because you define your reality using different parameter, using different rules for what is and what is not
but that doesnt make believers experience any less legitimate because they are experiencing it and you are not because you want to see and experience things differently than they do because you have chosen to go that way

so that the placebo effect works if you believe it works
and it aint because you know that there is no god(active ingredient) inside the pill that there is no god(active ingredient) in their faith that makes it work, but then thats why it works, they create a active ingredient(god) within themself, they create the placebo effect by having faith that the pill(reality) isnt a placebo(empty)
it works, its science, the placebo effect is a real phenomenon with measurable result, you can alter your reality simply by believing its something its not, but then is it not something if it is working ? what if for you prayer works every time, and that the more you have faith the better result you get ! how would that not be legitimate even from a scientific point of view ? and there is research already about how praying can have health benefit, and its the same as the placebo effect but thats not a argument against it, im not discrediting it by calling it a placebo effect, its like what jesus was saying that : the kingdom of god is within
it aint in the pill, it aint in the church, it aint in the bible, it aint outside of yourself, it is within your own subjective experience and that is a abstract concept
if you experience it as art then it is art to you, if you experience it as god then it is god to you
and it doesnt mater if someone doesnt see it as art or as god, those people who can experience it are having a legitimate experience that is as real as dreaming every night
it aint because that dreams arent "real" that they dont exist
it aint because imagination isnt "real" that it doesnt exist
it aint because art, beauty, music, reality, god, inspiration, love...are abstract concept that they cant be experienced on a concrete level

so what if some people want to eat fast food even tho its unhealthy or do drugs and have unprotected sex or do some extreme sport or go above the speed limit, dress up all wrong...
people should imo be free to do whatever as long as they dont arm others
guns should be legal, drugs should be legal, religions should be legal
we already have laws that deals with bad behavior, we dont need more
or else you turn people into babies in diaper

trying to regulate beliefs will only lead to more problems
trying to impose what you believe is the truth will only lead to more problem no mater how much you believe you are right
because in the end imo reality is as much subjective as it is objective and if you impose one side as being more "true" than the other than youll create unbalance
because not everyone will agree
so it doesnt mater how much good and true you think you are doing it you still are gonna fuck it up for someone else, hitler fucked it up for some just as much as jesus fucked it up for some, thats why he ended up on a cross, ghandi fucked it up for some thats why we heard about him, those Tibetan Buddhist monk as peaceful as can be are still fucking it up for someone who wants them out of there, so even if you do good all your life you still gonna end up doing arms by dying, youll hurt people by not being there anymore, and if you are hated by everyone then its the other way around, your death will be celebrated, youll make people happy
you cant do good without doing any arm, or doing arm without doing any good
shit always balance itself out, thats imo the nature of reality

so that if you are trying to do good by imposing one side more than the other because from your experience you are right because you are able to make sense of it all and conclusion : you are right and thats not your ego talking its logic and reason because even tho every night you get caught up believing that those dreams are real you sure cant be fooled by reality right now and start thinking that your logic and reason might have a bias at their foundation
if objective reality built from a foundation which is your own subjective experience then your own subjective experience builds from a foundation which is objective reality
its like a tree feeding off the ground nutrients with its roots just as much as the sun light with its branches
so that a trees branches are as good as its roots and its roots are as good as its branches
and the tree isnt contradicting itself by growing in and out (or up and down) at the same time, those are complimentary
logic and reason are as good as the heart they are standing on
Hitler had brain(cerebral intelligence) but he didnt have the heart(emotional intelligence), he was influence by Darwin and Nietzsche but that didnt help to make him right or good or true
he had a huge bias from the heart and he ended up with fucked up conclusion
he could use his brain and rationalize everything he was doing, he could use reason and logic and end up with evil
the brain isnt a computer disconnected from your body, its a bio-computer that works for your body for the sake of survival
its self serving, your ego is there to tell you to eat as much for yourself unless giving some to others will be good for you on a larger scale
we are machine made for survival and we fight to win the race
we fight against each other to know whos right
but we are in a situation where we are the biggest thread to ourself
we need to learn to work together
and if you think you are more deserving and should have a bigger part of the cake you create a situation where someone will mimic that behavior and he will think he deserve a bigger part of the cake too
and it wont mater if you are right or wrong (from your perspective) anymore, because you made it wrong by thinking you were right
you made it wrong for somebody else by thinking you were right more than they where because then you incite them to do the same, because we learn by mimicking each other
so you think that you are right from a objective perspective and think that thats more important than your subjective perspective but from someone outside yourself your objective perspective is his subjective experience and your subjective perspective is his objective reality
so that what goes around comes around and if you dont balance the two side within yourself then its gonna balance itself out outside yourself, and thats real, thats reality, thats objective reality, and it doesnt mater if you decide it aint art, you aint the ruler (despite what your ego might led you to believe) of what is and what isnt art, and you aint the ruler on what is and what isnt true outside yourself, no one owns objective reality, i dont have a better grasp at it then the baby pooping his diaper, but i do own myself, i have a good grasp over my subjective experience, i can control myself, but i cant control others unless they agree with me, so that the more encompassing of others i become the more in control i can be, but then you dont become in control of them, you just get more and more in control of yourself, because the more you lets yourself being destabilize by conflicting and contradicting view, the less your ego is in control over you, the more flexible it becomes, and flexible muscle arent weak, they actually are better, they are less prone to injuries, the more you can learn to let go the more you can go with the flow, and rivers turn left and right and the current turns left and right, its very yielding but somehow that makes it strong because gravity makes it strong, it receive gravity and use it to its advantage
if you let yourself fall youll accumulate energy, that will result in a acceleration
you can use that to your own good, if you do any kind of physical activity you need to use that dynamic, thats how you learn to walk
you need gravity to walk forward, or even to go up, you cant walk upstairs if there is no gravity pushing you downstairs, you need something going in the opposite direction, so that the opposite sex is as complimentary as opposite views are complimentary as roots are opposite and complimentary to its branches counterpart
one side isnt more true than the other, because it needs the other side to have a point of reference in regard to itself, its foundation is the other side
so that if you come up with some objective truth they are the result of subjective experiences, but those experiences would have lead different result if you were someone else,
we are here because someone had sex at some point
and we are here to have more sex
and thats what your brain is for, to get better result at survival
but if we are still killing each other over im right you are wrong and we cant agree to disagree, which means agreeing and disagreeing at the same time which would create a paradox that some would feel is a compromise instead of a completion
but if you feel its a compromise you wont be happy as much as if you can see it as a completion where opposites are complimentary which makes it so that the dynamic between the two is equal on both side resulting in a perfect balance within itself so that we can finally have peace
but if both side still want to be right and dont agree to disagree then their ego is still more in control then they are so that they cant find balance within themself so that they cant bring balance outside themself and we cant have peace because they are not at peace with themself
so then its somebody elses fault if things arent working in the world, and religion is the cause of all wars, or infidels are making god angry or whatever...

the truth from the brain isnt any more true than than the truth from the heart
both are working for your genitals for the sake of survival
so truth is something we made up in regards to our chance of survival
and it aint only about quantity more than it is about quality
so that if you spend all your time in your head you might end up unhappy about life, being a intellectual doesnt automatically makes you happier in life, its usually the opposite because most people dont think too much because they dont have too, so that we live in a culture that is pretty dumb and the more you are obvious to that the sadder it can get.
so would you rather have happy children with average intelligence or sad children with above average intelligence ?

what if your truth makes people unhappy ? depression can lead to suicide, and that aint a good scenario for your genital if what they were aiming for when they put up a brain on top of the heart was to get better chance at survival followed by a better quality of life..
so basically the truth from you brain is as good as its need to be by your genitals
and its the same for your heart
and it aint because someone decide that the brain is the true truth and that our genitals should be hidden and go back to europe when they would dress up like they were going to a funeral when they were going to the beach and that from their point of view those half naked african dancing around and playing syncopated beat where savage with no morality and that made then obviously inferior to the high wig powder standard of the European elite who could not dance for shit with their tight ass morality
and later on elvis was the music of the devil due to his african influence and the way he was shaking his hips..
and now a day we dont wear much to the beach but we still do get caught up in the idea that our own genital are somehow to be hidden from view because we still arent completely at peace with them
slavery in the Americas brought a huge African influence into European culture
and it was much fucking needed
it brought back a balance that had being lost
dancing around half naked under the influence in a sexual climate that might be promiscuous while listening to syncopated beats that might sound primal and sexually suggestive doesnt make you in any way immoral or inferior or a bad person or unevolve and it wont destroy society and turn everyone into a animal

hiding your genitals doesnt make them go away and it doesnt magically puts you in charge by avoiding them, if we wouldnt care about them we wouldnt care to show them (as in we wouldnt care to hide them)
we still live in a reality that is the domain of the brain, except that we aint suppose to do drugs because they make reality a whole lot more flexible and end up with experiences that contradicts what you have being lead to believe...
so lets hide the drugs and the genitals, actually lets make it illegal to do drugs and walk around naked because our fragile reality could not deal with so much deviousness, and lets not breastfeed in public either thats way too much suggestive and if you have any sexual though about it youll loose your firm grip on reality
avoiding parts of ourself just doesnt work, we need to work as a team, as a whole
objective reality doesnt involve your brain more than your heart or your genitals
but it does involve you as a whole more than it does you as a individual part
the brain alone cant survive without a heart, and it wouldnt be here if it werent for sex
and whatever truth we make up and believe in is only there to serve a whole
and if you take the whole of humanity the truth is gonna be whatever gives humanity as a whole a better chance of survival and post that a better quality of life
objective truth means shit unless it has a purpose
and if that purpose is to legitimate your own experience more than the experience of others than imo you are doing it wrong
the whole idea that African were inferior because they didnt fit the European standard was bullshit and it is no different (from my perspective) than atheist thinking that believer are not legitimate in their belief
thinking that you are more true than anyone else makes you egotistic
and i think that im more true than you but i only do so within myself, so im only more true in regards to my own reality, that doesnt make me more true to you because you are not me
so i can be 100% egotistic within myself because that is who i am, but on the outside its both me and you, both me and others, both me and the outside world, half my subjective reality and half our objective reality
and if its half and half then it aint egotistic, it only become so when its more me than you because im more right than you (from MY own perspective)

the ego can create a viscous circle where the more you have the more you want
but its like any addiction where you dont actually get more because what you want isnt necessarily what you need and quantity doesnt = quality
the more well balance you are the more healthier you get and the better you feel and the easier it is to deal with contradiction or conflicting situation
if you allow others to be as right as you are then you allow your own contradiction and your own failure as not so much of a problem, because you learn to walk by falling, you learn to do it right by trial and error, you need to fall to learn how to rise
if you allow others to be right from their own perspective even tho they are wrong from your own then you allow yourself to be as much wrong as you are right so that whatever you are doing can be a completion to whatever else you were doing so that you can start feeling as a whole,
so that playing the game of duality (2) can lead you to become one (1)
so that duality leads to unity, within yourself as much as with the rest of the universe, in and out, back and forth
and back and forth is what your parents were doing before you came to be, thats where you started and thats where you can go back, feeling one with it all, at peace, in motion but standing still, balancing, in and out, back and forth
 
Last edited:
Response to Lazy Science

No because I go to church occasionally. God is with me all the time when I wake up, when I go to sleep, all the middle in between bits. In the minutiae of life.Like I said its a relationship and it certainly is not all about good times, fun and nice feelings. Like I said I see Him mostly as Refiner or Alchemist.
This part of my spiritual path is very much about getting fired up or refined.. He wants nothing less then pure gold from me.
The journey in all honesty can be agonising, sometimes I want to turn back, but the Love .. mine for God and Gods for me . keeps me trudging or dancing on.
 
I dont see the sentence 'I also dislike religion ( for religions sake) as hypocritical. I think you just feel bitter because I challenged you on an earlier post.
Dont be bitter its bad for your body and makes your face look ugly.

I'm not bitter I just think you should own up to your own beliefs such as they are. But if you wish to distort the issue by claiming I have brought personal emotions into it so be it. However trying to separate yourself from religion by claiming you dislike it but at the same time happily taking part in one is hypocritical. I have a problem with Christians who try to separate Christianity and religion being that I am surrounded by people like that in the States.

I have a friend who wants to become a preacher and he likes to go on and on about how religion doesn't or isn't a part of Christianity and that they are two different things much like what you are saying now. And I just want to slap him sometimes (figuratively speaking of course I would never resort to violence like that) and say "Christianity is a religion you dope!". And I call him out on it all the time just like I'm calling you out on this. It has nothing to do with previous posts between you and me.

I would be lying however if I said I wasn't a little pissed that you accused me of hypocrisy but in all honesty this hasn't entered into it at all. For what its worth I sincerely think you are being hypocritical and that its not personal.

Btw that last sentence... fuck it never mind.
 
Last edited:
yeah i agree with you morpheus. like, for example, for the first 200000 years of human existence we suffered so hurrendously from disease and infant mortality with life expectancy being about 25 years and it wasnt until the last 2000 years god decided to intervene but only in the most illiterate backwards parts of the middle east. but not just that, in the bible hes described as a total bell-end.


yes, it has been conveniently set up to be this way by religion just so that they cant be proven wrong so they dont need to question their beliefs. it used to be, hundreds or thousands of years ago, that we needed god to explain the things we didnt understand like how people died of diseases before we know about micro-organsisms or how life came to exist before we knew about evolution and genetics. so this god that existed in our gaps of understanding has been gradually disproven and eroded away until we are in the position we are today where theres nowhere really for him to hide except behind the mystery of the big bang or things like that. and then when we discover how the universe came to be, im sure the believers will find a new place for their god to hide.


my belief is that there is a true reality that exists and its totally independent of my perception. it doesnt care about me, im not special. it seems to me your point is that you can make up your own reality in your head and thats as good as being true.


what? can you give one example of this?

The sky is blue, except in cases where it's red. The sun will rise tomorrow, unless there's a supernova and we all die...You're alive, until you're dead. This desk is 4 ft wide, until it gets destroyed into a million little pieces. There's 1000000 species on the planet, until there's 50000 species....we used to live in a Newtonian physical world, until Einstein came around, and then it changes again when Bell, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the rest developed quantum science, but there are still major discrepancies between theories that we know to be true on certain scales, why is there no unification yet? Why can't we determine exactly how the universe began? We've gotten down to almost the smallest unit of time possible after the beginning of the universe, but there's a haze there that seems to remain stubborn against our best attempts. Why can't we determine the shape of our universe exactly? It seems like the more we reveal the more questions are raised. Are quarks the ultimate fundamental building block of the universe or are there smaller units still? If there are at least 3 different types then doesn't that indicate there are different "parts" to them, and thus, theoretically, divisible? What of these parts? etc. The uncertain-ness of it all is a wonderful thing, IMO, because it allows for endless scientific discovery, which is what you advocated for, but there is a limit on the jurisdiction of science even if it IS infinite to one degree. That's not a contradiction, just like it's not a contradiction to have an infinite amount of decimal places between the whole numbers. The meaning of the word god, or higher power, isn't meant to replace science, at least not for me, or anyone with faith enough to realize that learning the Snapple facts about the world shouldn't come between you and your deepest feelings and thoughts.

Also...life coming to exist and life evolving are two different things. Completely different things. I am just as interested in anyone else in abiogenesis(how the first cells came from non-living matter), and I hope they do find the answers there, but, even if they discover exactly how it happened, it doesn't make the process any less remarkable given how statistically unlikely it is for all these disparate molecules to come together and survive as early as a billion years after the formation of the Earth, when it was still molten hot in many parts. If the only thing the higher power did was create the universe, then it must have known we were come in some degree because if all it did was set off the Big Bang (not really a bang, but an expansion of space and time acting as a cauldron of matter and energy) and set-up the initial conditions, then those initial conditions were obviously meant to lead us to this place here and now TO SOME DEGREE. I'm not saying their primary purpose was our existence, or anything else that'd make us seem special, but I'm saying the universe must've known we were coming in some respect.

A universe existing outside of your own perception is a metaphysical stance that is just as shaky as anything anyone has ever claimed. We only know the universe as it exists through the lenses of our minds. A universe outside of our ability to perceive is no different, in terms of justification, than my belief that there's a higher power binding all living and non-living things.

I'm saying that even if we learn all there is to know about every single thing in the universe, that still wouldn't be enough to disprove god. If we learn that there are, in fact, an infinite amount of universes in 11( or however many they're up to now) dimensions, then god could still theoretically exist outside of that. That's what makes that issue non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific as a hypothesis, which is my biggest problem with Richard Dawkin's stance, because I'm pretty sure he knows this fact, yet he still goes out on TV and writes books talking about how there's no evidence and blah blah blah. I mean...idk everyone's gotta make money, but a physics professor at a community college was the one who taught me about the idea that God isn't a falsifiable hypothesis and necessarily non-scientific, so if that guy knew about that idea, then Dawkins must've come across that argument before as well, and chose to ignore it.
And you are merely talking about people using gods as metaphors and such, which is what a lot of those mythical stories were about. I'm not saying god explains anything, though I cannot deny that deities have been invokes for many less than worthy reasons in the past. I suppose that's why there's that commandment "dont use my name in vain" come to think of it...

I'd suggest you reading up on the Middle Way if you basically want to know where I'm coming from, there's a book The Quantum and the Lotus that has a good discussion between a scientist and a scientist who later became a Buddhist monk in Tibet. It's a great read about a lot of the things we're talking about here, but also check out some of the Dalai Lama's writings on the Middle Way and meditation, he writes in a very plain and simple style yet it seems like his words come from such a pure and powerful place they're hard to deny when you read them. That's why I'd suggest him over a lot of these New Age type authors that Oprah loves to have in her book club that seem to try to convolute the issue.
 
Last edited:
You're just goading here, admit it. If you're being entirely serious, then I'm pretty unimpressed with this kind of black-or-white thinking. This is not mathematics or formal logic we're talking about here; this is the complex, many-layered, and highly personal task known as constructing a worldview or finding one's place in the universe. Pat, cut-and-dried statements like yours I just quoted show very little appreciation for the personal and interpersonal complexity of this task. Simply put, who are you to tell someone else how to self-identify and what to call themselves? That's as much YPH's birthright as it is yours.

A person who claims to be part of a religion and yet talks about how they dislike religion is being somewhat hypocritical IMO. But I agree belief is not Black and white. But I think you should look at my statement within context.

Religion is pretty similar to ethnicity -- it's people. You belong to a religion once you socially affiliate with people and validate their metaphysical worldview, and they in turn accept you as one of their own. Spirituality, on the other hand, is personal belief, minus the effects it has on the way you socialize.

I agree.

One can most certainly have a spirituality that has something to do with Jesus, but not self-identify as a Christian. I've met plenty of people who say they have no problem with Jesus or his teachings, but have a lot of problems with his fan clubs and how they behave. I've even met fans of Jesus who interpret his teachings as being rather opposed to organized religion, and are certain Jesus would never endorse any of the institutions that now bear his name.

From what I know and gather about YellowPolkaDotHalo that is not what she is saying. From talking to her I would say she is a devout Christian who believes wholeheartedly what the Bible says and readily takes parts in those institutions you mentioned. Which I say again I have no problem with. The problem I have is people who profess their beliefs and don't stand by them to distance themselves from some of the ugliness that their beliefs might bring along.

I have met many Christians today (especially in America) who say they are Christians (Church going and Bible reading Jesus is lord Christians not the Jesus fan club guys you mentioned) and yet say that religion has nothing to do with Christianity. Some even go as far as to say that Catholicism is not "True" Christianity (or that some other form of Christianity is not true Christianity) and try to distance Christianity with the word religion. IMO these people I have met are being hypocritical as well and this is exactly what I think she is doing.

I would have the same problem with a Muslim who claimed that he/she isn't part of a religion or a Hindu or whatever.


I'm sorry that you see this as goading but I wasn't. I was simply pointing out an inconsistency...
 
Last edited:
I would have the same problem with a Muslim who claimed that he/she isn't part of a religion or a Hindu or whatever.

what about jews saying they arent jewish ?
because their ethnicity and religion are very closely related but you can be a jew without being religious
so you can say that you are jewish because you believe in judeism or you can say that you are jewish because thats your ethnicity
 
Last edited:
what about jews saying they arent jewish ?
because their ethnicity and religion are very closely related but you can be a jew without being religious
so you can say that you are jewish because you believe in judeism or you can say that you are jewish because thats your ethnicity

No I would not have a problem with an ethnic Jew saying he/she isn't into Judaism. But if say a Hasidic Jew with a huge beard came up to me and started saying that Judaism is somehow not religion and or that he is not religious and that he dislikes religion than I would say he was full of shit and to go shave that beard off if he wasn't religious. At which point he would be forced to say well that is against my religion.
 
Last edited:
^Lol yeah according to their interpretation of the Torah specifically Leviticus 19:27

I've never met a Hasidic Jew but I've always found their beards to be pretty awesome. I also think that they hold a pretty cool tradition of thought that ranges from mystical (kabbala) to philosophical and from what I understand are a relatively peaceful bunch. There are also hints of Pantheistic beliefs in their mysticism as well.
 
Last edited:
so the best reasons for the legitamacy of belief being offered here are arguments from ingnorance - saying that god cant be disproven or, just because science doesnt have the answers, then god is a legitimate explanation. for me, its not very convincing.
 
Top