i defended Raven because i didn't find what bad he said.
He is trying to use his misunderstanding of basic logic to put forth the argument that believing in a magical father-figure is somehow logical, and could proceed from some sort of axiomatic first principles. He is, in short, an idiot, and a dangerous one at that, who will try to use science, logic and humanitarianism to defend institutionalized ignorance, illogic, and a hierarchical structure based on befuddling the weak-minded and baffling them with bullshit.
he was "defending" his religion in a traditional and very simple way.
No, he's not. If he had simply stated that his religion works for him, that he finds comfort in his faith or that it forms a useful model of the universe for him, then that would have been in a simple and traditional way. Instead of making an appeal to faith, or simply stating what works for him, he tries to throw around three-dollar words, ones that he doesn't even understand, and stand on some college-boy/public school argument about the definition of such terms. A chimpanzee with access to wikipedia could run circles around him, as I have ably shown. If you'd like to see a simple and traditional appeal to faith and defense of religion, might I recommend the works of Baha'ullah? I find them comforting in the way that others cling to different piles of paper.
also i didn't find where he "attacked" me with any reply...?
You, sir, are a kind and generous soul, willing to overlook the slights and jibes of the more uncouth. I applaud your good faith.
i didn't write about the axiom-debate at all, my reply was only because someone got fooled down for the religion he has.
He didn't get fooled down for what religion he was. He got fooled down for trying to sound smarter than he is, for trying to base his arguments on positions he himself does not understand, for simply regurgitating what has been shoved down his throat without actually engaging his own brain at all, and for simultaneously getting on his ALL CAPS high horse when he has no idea what the fuck he is talking about. Anyone who throws around certainties like that deserves a good strong kick right in his preconceived notions, and needs to be disabused of his prejudices, post haste. What you one-book defenders fail to see is that your world-model is no longer a useful hypothesis, and is in fact ill-equipping you to deal with the other four-fifths of the crew and passengers of Spaceship Earth, rendering you unfit to make societal decisions vis-a-vis Scenario Universe, and the future of our progeny in said construct. As the Romans said, "Beware the man of one book." (They indeed had much to fear for the Christians pre-empted and perpetuated their failed attempt at empire, doomed to ruin by abandoning the ideals on which it was founded.) As the Masons say, "This is the stone the builders rejected." You face the same dilemma as all of the supposed God-speakers, those who would put words in the mouth of the Almighty: You can't contain the infinite in one book; hell you can't even agree amongst yourselves as to which book, and what chapters. Who are you to have the unmitigated, chauvinistic gall to say that your book is better than the
Avesta, the
Quran, the
Apocrypha, the
Torah, or the
Book of Slack? As a Zoroastrian Syncretist Aikido Wiccan Taoist, I am deeply offended by your presumption, as are 80% of the rest of the planet's population.
so i agree with benmachine that i'm a bit :-( about the flaming.
Two things: 1) Stupid people should not be able to promulgate falsehoods in the name of God. 2) Not only is pointing out sophistry, solipsism and silliness not flaming, but the necessary operation and proper functioning of the mindful conscience, it is the duty of every free man who values the independence of thought that he now enjoys and the freedom of speech to call bullshit on bullshitters.
As Survivor said, religion was a social motivator, a place where education, encourage, help and control was possible (amongst many bad things unfortunately).
I agree.
And I agree that things changed.
Religion changed.
Actually religion refused to change, which is why it is like your friend from the 70s who wears shorts that are too short for a dude and still has a mullet. It has lost touch with its constituency, largely due to the fact that is is too centered around specific cultures, books, and untenable models of Scenario Universe.
but sirs, God didn't change...
if our surrounding changed, we should still find a way to find/contact him, maybe in a recent "style".
every church, religion, etc. changes. just think about reformation. drop stereotypes.
Indeed, dropping stereotypes would include
not thinking that your book, culture, or world-model is superior to all others in describing a personage, presence or consciousness that is truly infinite, and indeed can never be constrained in such a simplistic and dunderheaded fashion.
on the other hand i guess we are talking about almost the same thing :-)
exept the bible, what i think deserves a little bit more respect than a lost and found brainstorm by any of us. you don't have to be a christian or jew to find very good and useful things it.
Indeed I believe we share much common ground, I generally think you are a cool dude, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, as is Revan. But please don't try to describe subscribing to one particular pile of parchment over another, by preferring the scribblings on goatskins to the ideographs pressed into clay tablets as logical, or as a useful world-model in our current situation. Again, you are showing the anthropo-, Judeo-Christian, ethno-, monotheist-centric bias of your world-view every time you take a special exception for the Bible. If you cannot see this, perhaps you do not have the perspective to have a logical conversation on the matter, and we will have to relegate your arguments to the limited scope for which they can apply.
in Trem terms...
Bible is a very good manual for life. if you read it, you're less likely gonna feed, camp, cheat or decon because you understand how things works.
I personally find a red-letter New Testament to be sufficient for my needs. I highly recommend reading it at least twice; once, read the whole thing, and then go back and read just the parts in red, just the actual words of Jesus. It's like reading two different books. Besides, why do you need your Holy Book when your prophet has already told you, "Do unto others as you would they you.
This is the whole of the law."? Just for the bedtime stories about magical miracles?
so i didn't want to be offensive or anything, i think this is an interesting conversation where we discuss one of the biggest questions ever, so ofc we don't agree instantly.
I present these thoughts merely to try to unlock your mind, so that your spirit can achieve true union with the Ineffable, and not some dime-store pulp fiction hand-me-down designed to keep the sheep in their pens, and ready to roll over on their backs for the shearing.
it will take some more time and threads maybe before we announce our own religion :-D
I share your vision for a world where all men may date their best friend's sister.
Cheers!
Thanks for playing. Hate the game, not the player (or just free your mind and don't hate at all, but love diversity and multiplicity in all of its myriad manifestations). I bid you the everlasting peace of your convictions, and the wisdom to examine them thoroughly.
mildly edit'd: to amend a dangling prefix, and add the following:Postscript: The Universe is a riddle, posited by God. I don't have the answer; you don't have the answer. No one ever does or will except maybe one or twelve who realized that the answer is that it wouldn't be a riddle worthy of God if a man could divine the answer.In other words, it's a mindfuck designed by God, to fulfill our constant craving for novelty and self-knowledge, as well as our zygotic heritage of being dichotomously Damning-Through-Naming, twofold-seeing in the face of ineffable infiniteness, only capable of pitting Thesis against Antithesis, never achieving true Synthesis, this vs. that thinkers, unable to get beyond our fascination with low whole numbers. Primates stuck in the thin smear of biosphere which coats the living surface of the gravity well we call home. Instead of appreciating the view, we debate about the veracity of someone else's arcane views of the matter, as if they are sacrosanct. God, in my conception, enjoys a great laugh at the sheer variety of our forays into folly and our flourishes of fractured philosophy, seeking as they do to contain that which can never be contained, by the very nature of its immense infinitude, and "first-principle" pre-createdness.
