A friend, religion, and what to do?

[maxilive]

Hey if he is enjoying life and has found something he can relate to then leave him be. You have your views but let them remain your own and only bring it up if he tries to get you involved with any of his church doings.

But if he is keeping his beliefs to himself then you should too.

 

[Zethor]

Then your dogma is just as bad as religious dogma. A very narrow-minded viewpoint.

I think it's safe to ignore the 'revelations' coming from people who suffer from hallucinations and help them find a doctor or suggest they stop using mushrooms. This may be a narrow-minded viewpoint but it's also a healthy one.

Fascinating you chose the supernatural yet not subjective states to belittle and yet it is in the same category. What do you have to say here? Nothing? Well that doesnt surprise me

The subjective mind is not in the same category as the supernatural, unless of course you explain which category you have in mind.

2. You admit something which is unknown makes up a large part of the known universe (according to mainstream theory). What we know is miniscule compared to what is out there. But your arrogance that will admit of no evidence out there which doesn't fit your own dogma is laughable

The unknown is the unknown, nothing more. That being said, history has repeatedly proved that understanding the unknown requires a foundation of what is known. There is nothing known that suggests the supernatural exists so it is therefore logical to ignore the issue. Do you ever ponder the existance of Klingons? How about fire breathing time travelling ponies? If the answer is no, apply the same reasoning to the supernatural.

3. Again did i mention ghosts, pixies and gods? No i didnt. The example of the supernatural is to illustrate a point: a series of phenomena which people experience which is as yet unexplained. You dismiss it as imagination and hallucination. You are only showing your own ignorance and small-minded nature.

Its fascinating how fanatical you stick to your own dogma.

If the phenomena can not be replicated and they don't leave any traces, the only possible explanations are imagination or hallucination. If you try to solve the 'riddle' without using the evidence you run into a serious problem: there's an infinity of solutions, all of them equally valid (or equally invalid), a dead end. In example, one can state that the supernatural experience was caused by: God, Allah, the Giant Toaster or one of my farts. There's certainly a tiny possibility that my farts do cause hallucinations, you can't disprove that and dismissing it only shows ignorance and small-minded nature.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

In on 30 page thread.

 

[lafemmefatale]

I suppose, fundamentally, it boils down to human nature. I have said for many years that to ever have peace in the world you would have to dehumanise people because we are an overbearing and particularly violent species by nature. We are still animals, just far more advanced than any others on the planet, and we are fallible. Perhaps it is by design, or perhaps it persists because it is a natural necessity?

If we all lived in peace and nobody ever did anything 'wrong' what benchmark would be have to judge our own morality? If we were all equal, what incentive would there be to develop and achieve? If we all agreed on the same thing what reason would we ever have to question or challenge? This fundamental conflict is what creates change and to a large degree is the catalyst for progress. Without it we would become immobile and stagnate.

To fix the problem you would have to remove our nature, remove our emotions and make us operate like robots for the greater good. In nature the world tends to turn based on equals and opposites but most importantly balance. You can't have love without it's opposite existing and whilst it exists, it is a tool that can be used for harm. But if it didn't exist how would we properly appreciate Love? It is like hot and cold. How can you fully appreciate a roaring fire if you have never been cold, or a cooling breeze if you have never been warm? That contrast is essential in our comprehension of our surroundings and in maintaining our moral and ethical compass.

What we see here in this thread and on the forum in general is that same phenomenon in a microcosm.

So to conclude, humans gonna human!

Excellent.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Apathetic Agnosticism - The state of depression felt when considering what could have been acheived had the populace put aside the need to debate the irrelevant in favour of doing something useful instead.

 

[Thekwango]

One example is Catholicism (which is not Christianity BTW)

ORLY?? think you've read one too many fire and brimstone pamphlets my friend

 

[Rroff]

edit: nm kind of wrong thread

 

[spudbynight]

One example is Catholicism (which is not Christianity BTW);

LOL - this is the funniest thing on this thread.

 

[Thekwango]

LOL - this is the funniest thing on this thread.

Don't laugh dude. There are actually other branches of Christianity that teach their followers this - and they believe it as shown above.
That said Catholicism teaches that it is the one true form of Christianity.

Kind of like my Jesus is better than your Jesus sort of thing.

And we wonder why we fight so much

 

[Gogl]

Kind of like my Jesus is better than your Jesus sort of thing.

Ha, had to take a trip down memory lane after reading that.

 

[Zethor]

I suppose, fundamentally, it boils down to human nature. I have said for many years that to ever have peace in the world you would have to dehumanise people because we are an overbearing and particularly violent species by nature. We are still animals, just far more advanced than any others on the planet, and we are fallible. Perhaps it is by design, or perhaps it persists because it is a natural necessity?

I strongly disagree that violence is part of human nature. Violence is first and foremost a byproduct of resource scarcity because high resources availability corelates with low levels of violence. We're not violent by design, nor is violence a necessity, we're violent because there aren't enough resources for everyone. The advanced democracies prove this as their abudance of resources has lead to very small levels of violence.

If we all lived in peace and nobody ever did anything 'wrong' what benchmark would be have to judge our own morality? If we were all equal, what incentive would there be to develop and achieve? If we all agreed on the same thing what reason would we ever have to question or challenge? This fundamental conflict is what creates change and to a large degree is the catalyst for progress. Without it we would become immobile and stagnate.

Even if nobody ever did wrong things, it would still be possible to judge morality: don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you. Society does not need conflict for changes to occur, quite the contrary, conflict slows changes and it often completely stops them. Take a look at the peaceful regions on this planet, look at violent ones too and tell me, where do you see more immobility and stagnation?

To fix the problem you would have to remove our nature, remove our emotions and make us operate like robots for the greater good. In nature the world tends to turn based on equals and opposites but most importantly balance. You can't have love without it's opposite existing and whilst it exists, it is a tool that can be used for harm. But if it didn't exist how would we properly appreciate Love? It is like hot and cold. How can you fully appreciate a roaring fire if you have never been cold, or a cooling breeze if you have never been warm? That contrast is essential in our comprehension of our surroundings and in maintaining our moral and ethical compass.

I don't think you've put enough thought into this ying/yang peace/violence parallel you are making. In nature, even the most violent species do not actively seek violence, they avoid it whenever possible. If resources were plentiful, nonviolent behaviour would be the rule, not the exception, for tigers or lions, just like it is for humans who live in prosperous parts of the world.

We can and often do appreciate love and warmth without ever experiencing their counterparts, just consider any child who has someone that takes good care of them.

Violence is a rusting biological chain and we're not far from breaking it apart forever. That will probably happen at some point and when it does we will all be better off for it, just like we're now better off compared to people who lived 500 years ago.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

I strongly disagree that violence is part of human nature. Violence is first and foremost a byproduct of resource scarcity because high resources availability corelates with low levels of violence. We're not violent by design, nor is violence a necessity, we're violent because there aren't enough resources for everyone. The advanced democracies prove this as their abudance of resources has lead to very small levels of violence.

No we just knock on other people's doors and make war on them. Look at history. Our violence has absolutely nothing to do with limited resources and very much to do with greed and power. Oh and in advanced democracies there is plenty of violence. You only have to watch the news on any given day to see that.

Even if nobody ever did wrong things, it would still be possible to judge morality: don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you. Society does not need conflict for changes to occur, quite the contrary, conflict slows changes and it often completely stops them. Take a look at the peaceful regions on this planet, look at violent ones too and tell me, where do you see more immobility and stagnation?

Most of the advancements in technology we have made have been borne of a want or need to kill things. Back in the caveman days it was to kill animals for food. In more recent times it has been to kill other humans and control them. On a global scale if we never had disagreement or conflict in any way (I'm not just talking wars) we would lose much of the drive we have to develop, we would lose the benefits of questioning doctrine and moving forwards rather than staying tied to a belief system (not just religious beliefs). The world once thought the world was flat. If nobody ever questioned or challenged that what would happen to our progress?? That natural disagreement is essential. Very much like our discussion in his thread. I have said something you disagree with and you felt compelled to challenge my thoughts.

I don't think you've put enough thought into this ying/yang peace/violence parallel you are making. In nature, even the most violent species do not actively seek violence, they avoid it whenever possible. If resources were plentiful, nonviolent behaviour would be the rule, not the exception, for tigers or lions, just like it is for humans who live in prosperous parts of the world.

So would the lions eat vegetables? On a fundamental level we are hunters and we are territorial. We are also obscenely ambitious. You seem to have this utopian view on developed parts of the world. It is an illusion. Even though me may not be openly making war on each other we attack people daily. Be it verbally in the car, or trolling on Facebook or arguing on a computer forum. It is non violent but still adversarial.

We can and often do appreciate love and warmth without ever experiencing their counterparts, just consider any child who has someone that takes good care of them.

Violence is a rusting biological chain and we're not far from breaking it apart forever. That will probably happen at some point and when it does we will all be better off for it, just like we're now better off compare to people who lived 500 years ago.

No we experience love and warmth but we can never fully appreciate it without the balancing force of hate and cold. Not fully. We take it for granted. If a child was never to experience anything negative what basis would they use to decide on what is positive? They would just think that is how the world was. We can all enjoy a log fire but we aporeciaye it more after coming in from the freezing cold. Kids love to play war games but the people who have seen real war know it is a terrible thing. The imagination is tempered with the reality. The old cliche of not fully knowing what you have till it is gone springs to mind.

Are we better off? Really? We are still making war on each other. Still inventing ways to kill each other. Still forcing our will onto people that don't want or need it. We are still unable to find peace and still unable to live without violence or negativity towards our fellow man in whatever form that takes. But you believe we are almost there? Tell me why you are so sure? History has been repeating itself for centuries. War after war. Persecution after persecution. People doing bad to their fellow man. The times change, as do the means used but there is one blinding constant throughout it all.

Us.

 

[spudbynight]

Don't laugh dude. There are actually other branches of Christianity that teach their followers this - and they believe it as shown above.
That said Catholicism teaches that it is the one true form of Christianity.

Kind of like my Jesus is better than your Jesus sort of thing.

And we wonder why we fight so much

Well, the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ himself.

 

[Surfer]

I think it's safe to ignore the 'revelations' coming from people who suffer from hallucinations and help them find a doctor or suggest they stop using mushrooms. This may be a narrow-minded viewpoint but it's also a healthy one.

You will have to wait until you yourself experience something so beyond the ordinary world that you will get mocked by people who you previously would have sided with (and joined in the mocking). There is a world of difference between knowing the path (3rd hand) and walking the path (1st hand experience)

The subjective mind is not in the same category as the supernatural, unless of course you explain which category you have in mind.

The same problems scientists would have proving supernatural events faces them with proving that other minds exist. How can science prove that other people are conscious and are not merely automatons?

You know you are conscious but how can you prove that to other people. You cannot. The conscious mind is the domain of the subjective. Science deals with objective phenomena.

If the phenomena can not be replicated and they don't leave any traces, the only possible explanations are imagination or hallucination. If you try to solve the 'riddle' without using the evidence you run into a serious problem: there's an infinity of solutions, all of them equally valid (or equally invalid), a dead end. In example, one can state that the supernatural experience was caused by: God, Allah, the Giant Toaster or one of my farts. There's certainly a tiny possibility that my farts do cause hallucinations, you can't disprove that and dismissing it only shows ignorance and small-minded nature.

I personally have had experiences which would baffle scientific explanation. But as this is GD i won't go any further - i don't think this kind of discussion is very open or unbiased on here. You are sufficiently embedded in your camp so you are welcome to it.

 

[Edinho]

It all depends if it starts to change him as a person. If he no longer has the sense of humour he had, drops hobbys or interests then it aint going to last long as a friendship.

If he goes to church but is still a friend then I can't see what difference it makes.

 

[Jinxter]

I think hanging onto beliefs or otherwise is because there's a majority who are dubious or indeed frightened of death. Lots of folks want to live on after physical existence and need acceptance and belonging in their lives with organised religion providing some sort of opportunity for this to happen. Providing certain virtues have been met they hope for acceptance to carry on.

My personal belief (hope) is that there is something else beyond death. I may however be wrong but if there's nothing then I won't be conscious to know or even care