I have been reading the religious threads, well, religiously. I haven't posted in any of them, because it has taken me a while to collect me thoughts in a somewhat coherent manner. I have always found the topic of religion, and how it affects different people, fascinating. It seems to me that the majority of those on Hatrack are of the Judeo Christian persuasion. I have also noticed some atheists and agnostics.
Personally, I don't feel that I fit easily into any religious category. However, I do consider myself to be a spiritual person. I have read, on my own, many writings, teachings, and histories of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism. I like parts of all of these religions, but don't find myself overwhelmingly attracted to any of them.
The way I can best explain what I believe is this: I believe in a higher power or energy. I don't believe that this energy has a sex. i.e. is male or female; I think this energy encompasses both male and female. I believe that people are all connected by this energy, and that there are certain things that all people should reasonably be expected to do or not do. People shouldn't kill each other, steal from each other, torture each other, or lie. People should be tolerant and respectful of other people's beliefs, private property, and lifestyles.
To me, God/ess is in everyone, is part of everything in this world, and even the universe. The devotion that each person feels to their religion is evidence to me that there is some power that connects people to one another. That there are different ways of believing in this power is perfectly understandable. One of the things I liked best when learning about Hinduism is that they believe there are many paths to one god. (Which explains the 330 million gods of the Hindu pantheon.) In my mind, no one path is right or wrong. As individuals, people must find the path that best leads them to enlightenment.
I'd like to quote from Stephen Mitchell's translation of the Bhagavad Gita, Verses 11.9-11.13. When I first read these verses, they took my breath away because they described so well how I have always envisioned god.
With innumberable mouths and eyes, faces too marvelous to stare at, dazzling ornaments, innumberable weapons uplifted, flaming-
crowned with fire, wrapped in pure light, with celestial fragrance, he stood forth as the infinite God, composed of all wonders.
If a thousand suns were to rise and stand in the noon sky, blazing, such brilliance would be like the fierce brilliance of that mighty Self.
Arjuna saw the whole universe enfolded, with its countless billions of life-forms, gathered together in the body of the God of gods.
These verses still make me shiver a little. There's a lot of good stuff immediately following this, but I'm not going to write down the whole Gita.
At any rate, I just wanted to share a different view of religion with ya'll. This is sort of an incomplete post, but I'll try to write more about my ideas later. (That is if anyone is interested. )
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm really interested in the Mormon church...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This 'energy' of yours, how many Joules is it? If it's not measured in Joules, it ain't no energy.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<enters thread>
<munches popcorn>
<waits for the fun to begin>
By the way, Luet, my initial reaction to your thread title was "different from what?"
After reading this post, I kind of still have the same reaction. As in...I've known many people who feel this way about the ultimate at some point in their lives. Not that it's a bad thing for this all not to be "original," but you might consider that a potential source of comfort.
I have a final question for you. Would it be safe to sum up your views as indicating more of an "I don't know" versus any sort of strongly-held commitments about the nature of the ultimate? I'm fine with that, to be perfectly honest -- I prefer a religious viewpoint that leaves room for learning more in the future -- I just wondered if this post reflects conclusions you have arrived at or more like general musings on some of the imponderables (so to speak) of life.
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
quote: In my mind, no one path is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but what about religions that believe that there's is the only correct path? What are your views on this?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Why would they be wrong? Isn't it possible that, for the people walking that path, exclusivity is an important part of their journey but that this doesn't necessarily translate over to what is right for other people?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I was raised Mormon. I was a bratty kid with a crappy home life and I left the church, much to my parents' chargin, at age 13. They tried everything they could to make me go but I was beyond stubborn. Eight years later, they've come to accept, but certainly not approve, of my choices.
I just opened a letter from an Aunt full of "goodies from General Conference". Poor timing as I was already feeling down from a few recent relationship related events. I hate that I don't belong in my own family. Don't get me wrong, my family loves me deeply and I am closer to two of my sisters than I am to anybody. But this massive part of their lives, the thing they base their lives on and derive all meaning from, I have rejected. I wish I could go back and tell my punk 13 year old self to just shut up and go to church. At the time, I think it was much more rebellion than anything else. But this isn't the first little bout of sadness that has me pining for what I gave up. And in the past, I've given it an honest try to see if I could believe in the LDS church and in the process of analyzing what I could and could not accept I went from a weak Christian to an agnostic.
I want that uniting sense of purpose that is central to Mormon thought. I want a road map for my life that's already written. I want a community that's loving and always there. Most of all I want to be on the same page as my sisters. I know a desire to belong is nothing new, but that's what this is, and I think that for me nothing but the Mormon Church could truly provide it.
But I feel stuck. I can't join without belief. And I can't just conjure up belief in the LDS church any more than a Mormon could choose to believe in agnosticism. Doing so implies a lack of integrity.
After writing all this out I realize it has nothing to do with the thread except that it mentions religion. But I feel a need to write it, so here it is.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
i just had to say how humorous I think the phrase "choose to believe in agnoticism" is --- "oh, you're an agnostic?" "Yes, I choose to believe in 'I don't know'."
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I'm really interested in the Mormon church...
Me too, me too...
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Bob, I certainly haven't reached any conclusions about anything. And I know I'm definitely not original. By different, I meant 'different than what I've seen on Hatrack' thus far. I'm relatively new here, so I'm sure I've missed plenty of fun stuff.
Peter: To those whose religions state that only they have the right path, I just have to respectfully disagree. I'm not trying to press my (albeit shaky) views on them, and they should not push their views on me.
Amanecer: I know how it feels to have left a church. I was raised Catholic, and the second I was confirmed, I stopped going to church. My dad and my grandma keep telling me that one day I'll go back. I don't think it'll happen, but never say never.
Don't be too hard on yourself. Religion is such a personal thing, and you may never want to go back to the LDS church. But you may. In your own time you will figure out what it is you want from religion, and whether you are happier with it or without it.
I don't belong to a church, yet I am content in myself. I am also content with my spiritual side.
KoM: Infinite amounts of Joules. Infinite I say! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's interesting, considering it's supposed to be omnipresent. How is it that this 'energy' doesn't raise all the temperatures to infinity, as it certainly should by simple thermodynamics?
In case it escaped you, the point I'm subtly making here is that your 'different view' is just more of the same bovine fertiliser in a new and not very improved package.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No. If it's infinite it's entirely possible that it operates differently from the rules for any finite amount of energy. If you're going to claim to know what happens to the laws of physics when you start dealing with infinity, you're the one spouting BS.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Well KoM, I really couldn't care less what you think. From what I've read of your posts in the other religion threads, this is my impression of you: Bitter, rude, and disrespectful. You just can't seem to fathom that anyone has belief in a higher power. That is your own deal, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But don't you dare belittle my or anyone else's views of religion as if you were some sort of all-knowing, dare I say, god.
While I may not agree with many things in different religions, I would never knowingly call someone else's beliefs "bovine fertiliser." That's just rude.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I want that uniting sense of purpose that is central to Mormon thought. I want a road map for my life that's already written. I want a community that's loving and always there. Most of all I want to be on the same page as my sisters. I know a desire to belong is nothing new, but that's what this is, and I think that for me nothing but the Mormon Church could truly provide it.
But I feel stuck. I can't join without belief. And I can't just conjure up belief in the LDS church any more than a Mormon could choose to believe in agnosticism. Doing so implies a lack of integrity.
I'm glad you wrote this, because if you replace "Mormonism" with "Christianity"* this describes exactly how I feel. I left the church for very different reasons, but I feel exactly the same way. I want to believe so much. I want the community, the assurance that comes with belief. I keep on trying to make myself believe, but I can't.
It's very comforting to know that there are other people in the world who feel like this. I've felt inadequate for seemingly being the only person confused in this way.
*I don't mean to imply that Mormonism is not Christian, merely that I am referring to the range of Christian churches, which includes the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No. If it's infinite it's entirely possible that it operates differently from the rules for any finite amount of energy. If you're going to claim to know what happens to the laws of physics when you start dealing with infinity, you're the one spouting BS.
If it doesn't operate according to known physical law, then calling it 'energy' is misleading - which indeed is the point I was making anyway. Energy is a precise concept, capable of mathematical treatment and measurement. A hippy-dippy theft of the word, to lend a spurious scientific legitimacy to what is better described as a 'spirit' or 'presence', is an insult to all those people who struggled for years to understand this part of nature.
quote:While I may not agree with many things in different religions, I would never knowingly call someone else's beliefs "bovine fertiliser." That's just rude.
It is interesting that you should mistake honesty and accurate appraisal for bitterness and rudeness. You are quite right about the disrespect, though. You haven't even got enough courage of your convictions to call your faith by its right name. Instead you have to steal scientific concepts which you don't understand, and call yourself 'spiritual'. Just what does it mean that we are all 'connected by a higher energy'? You are trying to cover yourself in a cloak of science; the result is meaningless noise, as significant as the 'transmutation of bread into flesh' without taking on any of the actual characteristics of flesh. I stand by my description, but you seem to have focused on the wrong part of it; the important phrase is not 'bovine fertiliser', but rather 'the same'. All you've done is give the same old nonsense a new name. Get thee to a church, or better still a nunnery without internet access, and stop making believe that your 'spirituality' has any connection to the science whose words you spout without understanding.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
quote:You also agree that you will not use this forum to . . . disparage others for their own religious beliefs.
If you cannot abide by the User Agreement here, you may feel free to go elsewhere.
--PJ
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
It's funny...does the term "energy" really only apply to it's definition in physics?
Do you actually think that's the only definition of energy out there, KoM?
edit: And it's an INSULT to use it in any other way?
wow...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KoM, You're also trying to cover yourself in the cloak of science but what you said was gibberish. If you're not going to apply rigor to your own statements, you've got no call to expect it from others.
There are certain areas of discontinuity in math and physics. Can you tell me what happens when something goes at or past the speed of light? How about inside the event horizon of a black hole?
One of the primary discontinuities is that of infinity. Math and physics handle finite things. The best they can do with infinities is to approximate or cancel things out.
So when you were criticizing Luet for the infinite energy thing by saying that it didn't act according to the laws of finite physics, you were talking nonesense. We don't know what the behavior of infinite energy would be but there's good reason to believe that it wouldn't act exactly like a very large amount of finite energy, which is what you were treating it as.
This is particularly relevant because any complete view of the universe contains some form of an infinity which cannot be cancelled out. The most popular place to put this infinity is at either a zero point origin or an infinite series origin. If you're incapable of dealing with an unmatched infinity, you can't ever fully explain the universe. It a mathematical version of the old prime mover argument.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is something that stuck me as very profound when I first heard it. If you ask anyone from just about any other non-Christian religious how they reconcile the many different world religious, they usually say 'different roads to the same destination'. Oddly, if you ask a Christian, it 'they're wrong and I'm right'.
Personally, I subscribe more to the 'different roads to the same destination' philosophy. I think their is merit in all world religions. They, in some ways, are all seeking the same goal, just by a different name.
I've studied Yoga and Meditation, and I can tell you that until you have meditated, you have never prayed. The typical 'gimme, gimme' (Give Me) prayers of Christians are immenesly flawed, but I've found that most Christain leader are not really trained to teach people how to pray. Again, prayer is not 'Oh God, help me pass my math test', 'Oh God, help me win the lottery', 'Oh God, make sure may candidate wins the election'. Those may make you feel better, but I hardly think they constitute true prayers.
In yoga and meditation, you minimize the physical world so that you can come closer to the spiritual world. And one brief instant of perfect tranquility in meditation will bring you closer to God than a million 'give me, give me' prayers.
I often speculated that Orson Scott Card was speculating on the nature of Heaven when he created 'Outside' in the extension of the Ender Series. 'Outside' is the place where the infinite and universal essense that forms all life exists. It is the place where the universal essense that created the very universe exists. That doesn't fit the Christian 'paradise' model of heaven, but it is very close to the Buddhist and possibly Hindu model of heaven. Personally, I think the Christian 'paradise' model of Heaven like so many aspects of Christianity is simply a metaphor that allows us to speak of God and Heaven.
In other religions like Buddhism, at least conceptually, our vision of God is an illusion. Again, it is a flawed metaphor that places the unexplanable into a comprehendable format. But when we finally meet God, we see past the illusion, and see that beyond God, it the true uncomprehendable infinite spiritual essense of the universe.
I think OSC 'Outside' is a lot closer to Heaven than most Christian religious models. So, I quess in a sense, I am a universalist, I see aspects in all religious from the most primitive to the most sophisicated that are valuable and reflect an underlying spiritual truth.
So far in life, I have not been able to accept that Christianity is the one and only way to 'salvation'. That would imply that 90% (a guess) of the highly religious and deeply spiritual people in the world are doomed. I simply can't accept that God could be so cruel.
For what it's worth.
Steve/bboyminn
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
According to m-w.com "energy" can (viz. m-w.com) "a usually positive spiritual force" (definition 1c) as well as "a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work" (definition 3). Ridiculing Luet for referring to this "energy" makes as much sense as ridiculing someone for referring to "nutty" peanut butter because peanut butter can't be sane or insane.
It stops being legit, IMJ, if the definitions are confused and are viewed as nonmetaphorical. Energy can mean mood, spiritual force, attitude, pep, basic nature, or the thing that equals mc^2, but surley it can't mean all of them at once.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: If you ask anyone from just about any other non-Christian religious how they reconcile the many different world religious, they usually say 'different roads to the same destination'. Oddly, if you ask a Christian, it 'they're wrong and I'm right'.
Clearly, you haven't asked many Christians. Or non-Christians, for that matter.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Ditto to Rivka.
Do remember that "any other non-Christian religion" includes Muslims and Hindus. Ask a Pakistani whether those two are just different roads to the same destination.
I'd say Buddhism in particular probably isn't the best representative sample of "all world religions", given (for instance) its lack of any sort of deity (at least in its purest form). Buddhism seems, from my perspective, to be further towards the "philosophy" end of the spectrum than most major religions of the world, and therefore is naturally much more compatible with a lot of varied personal beliefs.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
King of Men is a materialist who tends to treat every argument in terms of scientifically provable physical facts. Often I think he commits the same fallacy as biblical literalists: that of giving clearly metaphorical expressions of percieved spiritual truths a non-metaphorical reading. On the part of a biblical literalist such thinking leads him to believing, in my view, obviously ridiculous things; for KoM it leads him to summarily dismiss a large part of human thoughts and experiences.
Myths are the expressions of what a culture percieve as spiritual truths dressed in metaphor. When Odin leaves his left eye in Mímir's well to gain wisdom it is obviously a metaphor for... something. Perhaps it is necessary to sacrifice part of your worldly sight to gain spiritual insights, I don't know.
When no one any longer understands the metaphor, when the myth no longer resonates within a culture, it dies or becomes irrelevant. I think this has happened in large parts of the western world and modern society in general. Myths need to change with the times to remain relevant and their lessons understandable. And the rate of change in the modern world is so rapid that yesterdays truths might become todays vices and the vices of yesterday today's necessities.*
A religious myth can only be properly understood within the cultural and temporal context of its genesis. And even then it is probable that it was only fully understood by an elite. Disecting a myth, as KoM frequently attempts to do, by judging its metaphors literally through the glasses of todays secular morality, or by evaluating its consistency through comparison with other myths from completely different cultural contexts, is using the wrong tools for the purpose and is unlikely to accomplish anything useful.
*Paraphrasing Joseph Campbell.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Maybe I should have used another title for my thread. My View of Religion, or something along those lines. I have never thought that I was the only one in the world who felt this way. (As is evidenced by BlueWizard, and others I've known in my life.)
KoM seems to have missed my point. Telling me to go to a church or nunnery makes it obvious that he hasn't actually paid attention to what I'm saying. I am not comfortable in that sort of organized atmosphere. There are too many rules and regulations within each different church, synagogue, temple, mosque, whatever, that I could never abide by. Not because the rules are necessarily bad, but because deep in my heart I don't agree.
Thanks to those who've defended my use of the term 'energy.' I had no idea that word was going to spark such annoyance.
Me? Co-opt science? Please. Keep your science. While it explains many things, it doesn't explain everything.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Oh, and Tristan, your explanation of KoM makes a lot of sense to me. You worded it better than I ever could have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: If you ask anyone from just about any other non-Christian religious how they reconcile the many different world religious, they usually say 'different roads to the same destination'. Oddly, if you ask a Christian, it 'they're wrong and I'm right'.
Clearly, you haven't asked many Christians. Or non-Christians, for that matter.
Thanks, Rivka.
---signed, a Christian of the "different roads to the same destination" viewpoint.
P.S. Luet, I think that your concept of God is not terribly far removed from mine and the passage you quoted was lovely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No. If it's infinite it's entirely possible that it operates differently from the rules for any finite amount of energy. If you're going to claim to know what happens to the laws of physics when you start dealing with infinity, you're the one spouting BS.
If it doesn't operate according to known physical law, then calling it 'energy' is misleading - which indeed is the point I was making anyway. Energy is a precise concept, capable of mathematical treatment and measurement. A hippy-dippy theft of the word, to lend a spurious scientific legitimacy to what is better described as a 'spirit' or 'presence', is an insult to all those people who struggled for years to understand this part of nature.
quote:While I may not agree with many things in different religions, I would never knowingly call someone else's beliefs "bovine fertiliser." That's just rude.
It is interesting that you should mistake honesty and accurate appraisal for bitterness and rudeness. You are quite right about the disrespect, though. You haven't even got enough courage of your convictions to call your faith by its right name. Instead you have to steal scientific concepts which you don't understand, and call yourself 'spiritual'. Just what does it mean that we are all 'connected by a higher energy'? You are trying to cover yourself in a cloak of science; the result is meaningless noise, as significant as the 'transmutation of bread into flesh' without taking on any of the actual characteristics of flesh. I stand by my description, but you seem to have focused on the wrong part of it; the important phrase is not 'bovine fertiliser', but rather 'the same'. All you've done is give the same old nonsense a new name. Get thee to a church, or better still a nunnery without internet access, and stop making believe that your 'spirituality' has any connection to the science whose words you spout without understanding.
Actually, when you start to think about it, really think about it, sprituality and science go quite well together... Think of symbiosis. Think of how interconnected things in nature are. It's only humans that are outside of that for the most part. Nature, even when it's cruel makes SENSE.... My own beliefs are close to Luet13, but I usually don't talk about them because who wants to get into yet another argument about why spirituality doesn't exist and why life is meaningless... Atheists tend to frustrate me as much as fundamentalists do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see where you need any spirituality for symbiosis; Darwin does the job perfectly well. As for nature making sense, I suggest you take another look at the design of the human spine and eye.
Touching energy, dictionaries record common usage. I am dismayed that the hippy version is widespread enough that dictionaries record it; but this does not make it right. And I stand by my explanation of where the term comes from.
Squick, when you make a post with any new points, I'll reply to them. Meanwhile, my last one has got you covered.
And Luet, if you want the warm fuzzies of belief in a higher power, without the rules, that's your option. But when you put your beliefs out for discussion, you must expect them to be discussed.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I daresay that the "hippy" definition of energy was used long before the more rigorous one used in physics.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wish it was possible to discuss religion seriously on Hatrack these days.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I'd love to discuss my beliefs. All you want to do, is belittle them. If you can't have a discussion with me about my beliefs without resorting to namecalling, then there is no discussion. It's just you being mean. And me not responding to you anymore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But when you put your beliefs out for discussion, you must expect them to be discussed.
KoM, you know as well as I do that there's a distinction to be drawn between "discussion" and insult.
There are many, many ways you could have worded your reply to Luet; you chose an insulting one. That has nothing to do with Luet's decision to engage in discussion, and everything to do with your refusal to do so civilly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: I am not comfortable in that sort of organized atmosphere. There are too many rules and regulations within each different church, synagogue, temple, mosque, whatever, that I could never abide by. Not because the rules are necessarily bad, but because deep in my heart I don't agree.
Take this as a gentle suggestion...
If you find that getting together with others to talk about, share, be with, others in a spiritual way is a helpful/nourishing thing for you, I wouldn't give up on "organized" religion entirely. My experience is that there is an enormous varity of religious communities and that many of them aren't about "the rules".
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
kmbboots: Do you have any suggestions of specific religious communities that I could look into? I live in Chicago, so I assume there must be something here, but I don't even know where to begin. Thank you. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
edit to add: Of course, since you in Chicago, you would be welcome to come to Mass with me at Old St. Pat's. - but, as liberal as we are, we are still Catholic and thus may be too structured for you.
edit (again) to add: We should get together sometimes regardless.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think there is a genuine conflict here between accuracy and politeness; I came down on the side of accuracy, and I stand by that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I came down on the side of accuracy, and I stand by that.
It is not always necessary, I maintain, to volunteer all your thoughts in order to be completely accurate.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: It's very comforting to know that there are other people in the world who feel like this. I've felt inadequate for seemingly being the only person confused in this way.
I know what you mean. Thank you for your post. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of like the idea of gods or whatever being apart of us like the way blood is in water, or sap in trees, or maybe somewhat closer than that...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"It gives me the warm fuzzies" is not usually considered evidence of anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It seems to me that Synesthesia didn't claim that it was.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Man, King of Men, what bug crawled up your butt and hatched eggs to make you so down, sarcastic and negative about everything?! I really just don't get it. I try to ignore the crap some people post but you do it in so many threads. Sometimes it's okay to think something to yourself and NOT post it. Geesh.
Sorry about that little digression.
Leut13 - Awesome post. I'm in the same camp as you. I love to explore the religions that are out there, I'm not quite sure I fit into one that's already there and I find incredible parts to most of them. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not a matter of warm fuzzies. I believe that whatever god is it can't really be separated from people. It's apart of them. It's a bit hard to explain if one doesn't believe that. I have trouble with organized religion, but I have more trouble with not believing in anything but rather frustrating philosophers. I so hate nilism or the idea that life is meaningless. Perhaps neither side does enough to explain things. So one needs to be open to the whole picture.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
KoM, why do you do that? Why do you feel it necessary to disparage and refute every single instance of something you happen to disagree with? Do you not realize that you are being a mean spirited jerk? That you come across as someone who is perfectly willing to abandon reason and civility in order to score a hit?
Are you really THAT desperate to be right about something? I cant see any other reason for you to go to the lengths you do to make a point that doesnt need to be made. Go argue with a kindergartener about the finer points of relativety if you're so anxious to come across as smarter than someone.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Conversely, why do people feel it necessary to discuss their 'spirituality' on this board? I don't feel any particular need to defend my choice of subjects.
And while I don't subscribe to politeness over accuracy, I trust I have never abandoned reason in order to make a point; indeed, if I did, it wouldn't be much of a point.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Politeness and accuracy don't have to be in competition. You, like everybody else, can discuss whatever you want so long as you do it respectfully. You're far from the only person on this board that isn't religious. I've also seen many people bring up their concerns that religion is a net harm. But they didn't attack people and try to be as obnoxious as possible. If you can't be respectful about a topic, then you ought to have the decency to leave it alone. You ignored me in the other thread, but I honestly want to know what you get out of behaving this way.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But how do you know it isn't accurant? I do not like certain aspects of organize religion. They repulse and scare me, but not all religious individuals are like that. Many use their religion as a way to shape their lives, a positive helpful way.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
You value accuracy, but you don't value common courtesy. Thus, any points you try to make, regardless of how logical and reasonable they may seem, will be lost because people would rather not listen to someone who treats everyone else like dirt. You think you're making (or scoring) points, but no one will ever be persuaded by you because of how nasty and inconsiderate you are.
Now, your response to this may be, "Well, their loss," and that's entirely up to you. I'd like to point out, though, that your style of discourse is a material negative to this community. If you're trying to persuade people to your point of view, you should change your style. Otherwise, you're just using the forum as a soapbox from which to spout your rhetoric.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I daresay that the "hippy" definition of energy was used long before the more rigorous one used in physics.
-Bok
Confirmed, at least if "hippie" means "all other definitions." OED shows its oldest ref to physics energy in 1807; oldest ref to other meanings is 1581.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Are you serious, King of Men, with that first question? If I were answering I might say... because it makes for good conversation, because it gives insight into other peoples thoughts even if you're just curious about them, because it's something many people have at least some ideas about.
Also, you didn't answer why you habitually belittle people's thoughts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Also, you didn't answer why you habitually belittle people's thoughts.
Because they are not only wrong, they are wilfully and deliberately wrong. What is complicated about this?
quote:But how do you know it isn't accurate?
Look at the 'If Al-Quaida were like the Mormons' thread.
quote:Thus, any points you try to make, regardless of how logical and reasonable they may seem, will be lost because people would rather not listen to someone who treats everyone else like dirt.
I don't; I treat their ideas as the nonsense they are. If people are so attached to their ideas that they cannot separate identity from belief, then they have much worse problems than the rudeness of random internet people.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It is too bad KoM took over. I found the discussion fascinating. Most of all because I am one who believes strongly in a "One Religious Path" theology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And while I don't subscribe to politeness over accuracy, I trust I have never abandoned reason in order to make a point; indeed, if I did, it wouldn't be much of a point.
There's a difference between making a point and scoring a point, you know.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What do you think the difference consists in? But if you would, please start a new thread for that. This has turned into a discussion of style rather than substance. Either respond to my ideas, or ignore me; this "your presentation is killing your points" is just sidestepping the issue.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
How about your presentation is ruining everybody else's enjoyment? Or does nobody matter but KOM?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:this "your presentation is killing your points" is just sidestepping the issue.
KoM, are there any ideas you've expressed here that people haven't responded to dozens of times?
I get that you don't think they've refuted those ideas and so haven't convinced you to change your mind. But you must be bright enough to realize that, in like manner, you haven't refuted anyone else's points nor convinced them in these dozens of discussions.
It's not sidestepping the issue to refuse to respond yet again to your materialist dogma.
quote:Either respond to my ideas, or ignore me
Just as it is beyond our power to make you stop posting mean-spirited and rude anti-religion diatribes, it is beyond your power to force people to ignore your willful and flagrant disregard for the ToS.
Believe me, if this board had an ignore feature, you'd get far fewer responses than you do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I get that you don't think they've refuted those ideas and so haven't convinced you to change your mind. But you must be bright enough to realize that, in like manner, you haven't refuted anyone else's points nor convinced them in these dozens of discussions.
Well then, why have a discussion at all? You can hardly argue that any new material has been presented by the theists in this thread.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Gosh. I guess I just need to take in to consideration (especially when dealing with King of Men) that some people are just little kids trying to act like they rule the world.
Lesson Learned. Also - thanks, Dagonee, for the idea of the ignore feature. I'm creating one in my mind.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You managed to miss my actual point. Hint: it's in the sentence immediately following what you quoted.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, I disagree with your actual point. I have responded to people's theist dogma. If you don't want to have a discussion on which is true, fine, ignore me. If you feel that everything possible in that debate has already been said, fine, ignore the whole discussion. If you want to discuss another aspect of what was posted, again you are perfectly at liberty not to respond to me. But if you want to have a discussion at all, attack my ideas, not my posting style.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since it seems necessary: my point was that the issue hasn't been sidestepped. I didn't say the discussion shouldn't happen again, merely that not having the discussion YOU want to have is not the same as sidestepping the issue.
quote:But if you want to have a discussion at all, attack my ideas, not my posting style.
Well, no, you don't get to decide that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you don't want people to attack your posting style, and you find your posting style frequently attacked from all points (not simultaneously, but I think it's pretty safe to say that at some point, everyone-or nearly so-who has ever communicated with you has attacked your posting style)...why not change yourself, instead of demanding the rest of the world change for you?
I actually know why, and it's not because you're trying to change people's minds.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
KoM, consider this to be an analogy, taken to extremes:
Poster A: "Hey, let's all discuss things we like!"
Poster X: "I like fluffy bunnies. And ferrets. They are so nice and cuddly and they make me happy."
Poster Y: "Bunnies are vermin. Ferrets bite. And they both urinate all over everything."
Poster X: "Why are you so mean? Boo-hoo! Think what you like, but I'm going to like bunnies."
Poster Y: "Only idiots like bunnies."
Poster A: "Why are we calling Poster X an idiot?"
Poster Y: "You're the one who wanted to discuss things we like. If you can't take discussing how disgusting bunnies are, don't bring them up on a discussion board."
Poster X: "But I like bunnies! Why are you insulting me for liking bunnies?"
Poster Y: "It's the people who like bunnies who're ruining the planet. If you had half an ounce of sense, you'd understand."
Poster A: "Is it necessary to be so insulting? You could just say that you don't share his opinion of bunnies."
Poster Y: "I'm just telling the truth."
Poster A: "Oh, yeah? Well, the truth is that you're a Grade-A jerk, you little..."
*AND THEN THE JANITOR DESCENDS*
----------
Now, we've all seen versions of this little drama play out on a variety of topics, but surely you (and by you I mean KoM) recognize that you play the role of Poster Y every time religion is ever mentioned in a positive way. It's ridiculous, insulting, and pointless, and actually reinforces the kind of thinking that you claim to despise; you are, in other words, only buttressing the opinions of the religious faithful by your actions, and creating the impression that people who share your opinions are by nature hostile to the faithful.
Depending on what you want out of interaction on this forum, this is probably counter-productive.
Rest assured, the atheist POV will not go underrepresented here if you pass up the opportunity to slander some poor soul who made the mistake of mentioning their love of a hypothetical God.
But you KNOW this. So why play innocent?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Wow. I don't even know what to say. I was hoping to talk to some other religious minded individuals and see what they thought of my views.
I didn't expect this turn into the wonderful world of what's wrong with King of Men, or why theists are stupid, or accuracy vs. politeness. It's awesome where a conversation can go.
Weeeeeeeee! Hatrack, you are pretty amazing sometimes. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, no, you don't get to decide that.
Well, I can't decide what you do, obviously, but I can decide what I respond to.
About Poster Y, it seems to me that he is being perfectly reasonable : He doesn't like bunnies, he gives very credible reasons why he doesn't, and then people jump all over him. You will please note that I have called nobody an idiot. If I may rephrase, a better analogy would be
Poster Y : Your reasons for liking bunnies are ridiculous.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You will please note that I have called nobody an idiot.
Perhaps not today.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well now, on the subject of just what people are calling names. Here is my post that started the whole brouhaha:
quote:In case it escaped you, the point I'm subtly making here is that your 'different view' is just more of the same bovine fertiliser in a new and not very improved package.
You will please note that I am attacking the idea and not the man. Then here are some of the responses:
quote:Well KoM, I really couldn't care less what you think. From what I've read of your posts in the other religion threads, this is my impression of you: Bitter, rude, and disrespectful.
quote:Do you not realize that you are being a mean spirited jerk?
quote:It's just you being mean.
quote:Man, King of Men, what bug crawled up your butt and hatched eggs to make you so down, sarcastic and negative about everything?!
I am perhaps not the most objective judge, but it does seem to me that this is attacking the man and not the language, and certainly not the idea.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*likes fuzzy bunnies*
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Out of context you can make any quote prove your point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I thought you were ignoring me? But anyway, do you feel that I have badly mis-represented the spirit of these posts?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I still want someone to acknowledge how I nerd served KoM.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Did I say I was ignoring you or was I typing about an ignore feature?
I really do, at least mine. I wasn't attacking you. I was letting you know how I read the sentiment behind a lot of your posts. Nothing more or less.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, I wasn't attacking Luet, I was letting her (him?) know what I thought about her ideas. And without any reference to body parts, at that.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I'm really sorry that it came out on this thread, but my comment to you was in general. It wasn't specific to this thread. I've read a lot of your comments that seem (to me and maybe it's just me!) to be negative.
The reference to body parts wasn't literal - it was just the way I put it. I was trying to be light about the whole thing and that clearly didn't work.
I'm sorry if I offended you with my posts. Honestly, I'm not in 'it' to offend people. I've got a lot more to gain by opening dialogue as opposed to turning it into an argument. At the same time, I've got to be honest and say that the disregard you show towards any idea that differs from your own is offensive to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I took no offense; I was merely trying to show that the charge of hard language can cut in two directions.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Can you explain what you mean a little more?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't understand what is unclear. People have objected to the language I used to present my points. Some of them have done so in equally harsh language. This seems to me somewhat inconsistent.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Now I understand what you meant. I think. Let me know if I'm off base... The words people use to convey their feelings can be counter-productive. For example, my bug/butt reference. I get that, completely. I even agree with you.
What I was also trying to convey (through the use of the wrong words to get my point across, so who knows if i'll get it right this time) is that the sheer emotion behind your words - hard language or not -, the way you string words together period is sometimes read as confrontational and argumentative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well then, I wasn't attacking Luet, I was letting her (him?) know what I thought about her ideas.
Luet was putting forward an idea of the universe that he/she had come up with after some hard thought and tentative exploration. While you might disagree with those ideas, and/or find them unproductive, it's uncharitable of you to criticize them so harshly without acknowledging the trust that Luet has implicitly placed in you by sharing.
By volunteering something that he/she admits is a work in progress, the assumption is that critiques -- which are welcome -- will also be gentle.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It's not a matter of warm fuzzies. It's a bit hard to explain if one doesn't believe that. I have trouble with organized religion, but I have more trouble with not believing in anything but rather frustrating philosophers. I so hate nilism or the idea that life is meaningless. Perhaps neither side does enough to explain things. So one needs to be open to the whole picture.
Rather than spending another whole page talking about KoM...
Syn, I absolutely agree with especially this part:
quote: I believe that whatever god is it can't really be separated from people. It's a part of them.
My understanding is that this is what we call the Holy Spirit. The analogy I use to help me think about this in a trinitarian way (again - it is an analogy - a way to try to grasp the ungraspable) is to think about it as light. All of the light of the universe is "God" - the concept of light; our sun, for the purpose of this analogy would be Jesus; fires, stars, candles, lightbulbs would be the god that is in us. Lesser, but still the same and part of the whole.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Well then, I wasn't attacking Luet, I was letting her (him?) know what I thought about her ideas.
Luet was putting forward an idea of the universe that he/she had come up with after some hard thought and tentative exploration. While you might disagree with those ideas, and/or find them unproductive, it's uncharitable of you to criticize them so harshly without acknowledging the trust that Luet has implicitly placed in you by sharing.
By volunteering something that he/she admits is a work in progress, the assumption is that critiques -- which are welcome -- will also be gentle.
YES. Thank you Tom. Being criticized was not the issue for me. Being told my ideas were in essence 'cow ****', I found insulting. Because religon, or lack thereof, is such an intensely personal thing, an attack on my ideas seems to be an attack on me.
KoM: The truly hilarious part of all this, is that while I think you can be rude and disrespectful, I've thought many of the same things that you say. (For instance, in "If the Mormans were like Al Qaida" thread, I agree with points about the Bible, and how people just blindly follow it. To me the Bible is another set of mythology, like the Ramayana, or the Vedas.) I just think it's a matter of wording your points in a way that doesn't come off as: I'm better than you, smarter than you, and I know the truth and you don't. Nobody knows the truth. Nobody can say for sure what happens when we die. If we knew that, then religion would probably cease to function.
kmbboots: I like your imagery of light. In my mind, that's another way of saying 'energy.' In the end, it's something that connects humans to one another, and nature, etc.
P.S. Didn't any of you read Homecoming? Luet is a female name, thus I am a female. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Unrelated, but KOM, if you like metal you'd probably love that Slayer song Cult. I like that song, but I don't think religion is completely bad, it just has a few bad seeds in it ruining everything like anything else does... But it's still a cool song with good lyrics.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)