Does anyone ever benefit from it?

If so, are there ways to go about it positively and make sure that everyone benefits, as well as ways to bring out negativity and only cause further misunderstandings on both sides?

What do you think?

You can benefit from anything man. I know what you're trying to say though, since religion rests mostly on faith, debate can't be done too much in a normal logical matter.

Discussion is still possible, but not debate.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

Does anyone ever benefit from it?

If so, are there ways to go about it positively and make sure that everyone benefits, as well as ways to bring out negativity and only cause further misunderstandings on both sides?

What do you think?

Go to hell 2.6% of earths population! The rest of the 97.4% dont want you here!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/60minutes/main2602308.shtml



http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=457892007

Wow, one man renounced radicalism and violence, that totally proves your point whatever it may be

quote:Originally posted by ate:

Does anyone ever benefit from it?

If so, are there ways to go about it positively and make sure that everyone benefits, as well as ways to bring out negativity and only cause further misunderstandings on both sides?

What do you think?

I think it is necessary, and that discussion on important matters like the origins of life and the direction mankind is taking is constructive to furthering humanity.

I think debate is just a natural side-effect of discussion, just due to the fact that everyone is not always going to agree on every issue concerning religion.

Everyone is entitled to represent their beliefs and further their agendas. The way to go about it positively is to engage in intelligent, even-handed dialogue in appropriate settings that help educate your peers who do not fully understand the reasons behind what you believe in. That is often referred to as Creating Awareness. It should be encouraged and carried out whenever possible.

There are plenty of ways to bring out negativity and cause further misunderstandings on both sides. One way is to listen with deaf ears to the things your peers take the time to point out for the sake of defending their beliefs.

Want a good example of bringing out negativity in this forum? Go through this forum and pick out everything.ever.posted. by Masta Thief and then pick out a few of the *angsty teenage anarky atheists* who prefer to make their points by childish name-calling, finger-pointing and deliberate misuse of facts to prove their points.

The weak and stupid NEED a biblical "god" otherwise they are just weak and stupid in a world that values intellegence and strength.

Do you think god made pedophilic clergy as part of a devine plan? An all knowing all powerful good natured being, let little timmy feel all 5" of a semi-hard, pastor Smith?

quote:Originally posted by Masta Thief:

Go to hell 2.6% of earths population! The rest of the 97.4% dont want you here!



So... if 95% of the world DIDN"T believe in the invisible man would it change your mind?

The amount of people people who support an idea don't make it correct.

Look at all the support there was behind "THe earth was flat". Now we know that's not true, regardless of how many people believed it was like that.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I think it is necessary, and that discussion on important matters like the origins of life and the direction mankind is taking is constructive to furthering humanity.

I think debate is just a natural side-effect of discussion, just due to the fact that everyone is not always going to agree on every issue concerning religion.

Everyone is entitled to represent their beliefs and further their agendas. The way to go about it positively is to engage in intelligent, even-handed dialogue in appropriate settings that help educate your peers who do not fully understand the reasons behind what you believe in. That is often referred to as Creating Awareness. It should be encouraged and carried out whenever possible.

There are plenty of ways to bring out negativity and cause further misunderstandings on both sides. One way is to listen with deaf ears to the things your peers take the time to point out for the sake of defending their beliefs.

Want a good example of bringing out negativity in this forum? Go through this forum and pick out everything.ever.posted. by Masta Thief and then pick out a few of the *angsty teenage anarky atheists* who prefer to make their points by childish name-calling, finger-pointing and deliberate misuse of facts to prove their points.

So....do you think...that it could be that we are not emotionally well enough to accept everyone's differences, and the fact that you'll never get a world that everyone initially agrees on?

What do you think the natural side affect of a discussion will be, once everyone decides the world is never going to be like they imagine it, and they must first go and experience how different and challenging everything truly is?

More fighting? Instance and constant success?

Or a settle for mediocrity of ideas and interactions?? Or do you think people would slowly grow and learn to intelligently review certain subjects, and then communicate their findings to others just like we do now, only the *perfect* communication, in which one's ideas get across without failure, will be the COMMON situation, instead of arguing and more and more misunderstandings being made.

Wouldn't that then start to tip the scales towards everyone understanding each other. But this would all rest on the fact that humanity as a whole "grew up" emotionally and literally fore-saw the fact that arguing was about to happen, and then would choose to AVOID it at all costs, instead of running into a forum with a proverbial battle suit on, like some people are even doing in this thread without intended instigation.

Now, do you think negativity would just *pop* and disappear, or even slowly wane away, until it's gone forever?

OR would it evolve into another aspect of our ability to express ourselves and communicate, and if so what could it become?

If were not yelling at each other, and we're not simply being nice but not understanding each other, then what kind of situation would we be in?

quote:Originally posted by ate:

So....do you think...that it could be that we are not emotionally well enough to accept everyone's differences, and the fact that you'll never get a world that everyone initially agrees on?

I think that one side has a higher emotional investment than the other when it comes to guarding/defending/stating their beliefs. I don't think I need to point out which side that is.

I won't use your analogy of "well enough", because that would imply that if they DON'T attempt to understand others, then they are "not well", and that almost implies "sick". Since we're talking about what goes on in a person's head that brings them to make the decisions they do, that would imply a mental deficit. I do not believe that people of faith have mental deficits, I believe they are too emotionally invested in their religions to ever truly understand where an atheist is coming from.

I don't believe that emotions should be factored in at all if you are trying to make an effort to understand a point of view that differs from your most core beliefs.

I believe that strong emotions can prohibit outright, or at the very least, muddy the waters of clear, unbiased thought processes which might lead to understanding.

A good analogy of that would be someone who, in a state of emotional distress, makes a hasty decision that has a negative outcome. Had they thought it through more clearly when their emotions weren't so high, the negative outcome could possibly have been a positive outcome.

quote: What do you think the natural side affect of a discussion will be, once everyone decides the world is never going to be like they imagine it, and they must first go and experience how different and challenging everything truly is?

I'm not quite sure what exactly it is you're asking here. Please clarify a bit more.

Are you talking about what would the discussions be like after both sides realize that the world will never be as they imagine it, or are you asking how one side might fare if they actually tried to apply the other's worldviews to their real lives?

I will feel more comfortable stating my opinions on the rest of your points if I can get that one portion clarified.

I kind of see what you're driving at here, I just want to make sure we're on the same page before I go off on a rant that has nothing to do with what you're talking about. lol

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I'm not singling out people of faith, it is a problem and an illness for all kinds of people, who can't allow themselves to see how another person's perspective could be rational to them.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'm not quite sure what exactly it is you're asking here. Please clarify a bit more.

Are you talking about what would the discussions be like after both sides realize that the world will never be as they imagine it, or are you asking how one side might fare if they actually tried to apply the other's worldviews to their real lives?



Yes, but in talking about the discussions, I assume we would shed light on how the world would look and how people would have changed.

I wouldn't ask anyone to try to let go of themselves entirely to attach to another world view, because I would see that as a sort of suicide, a murder if it happens in the case of an invasion and war.



A rant would be fine by me.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

I'm not singling out people of faith, it is a problem and an illness for all kinds of people, who can't allow themselves to see how another person's perspective could be rational to them.

Really we are talking about people of faith, ate. Unless I've let the thread title fool me. My... bad? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I do see the problem, but I refuse to call it an illness, as I stated in my last post. I like to think of it more like "The Ugly Baby" syndrome, and I think that's a great example to use when we talk about how strong emotions can sometimes warp a person's opinion on something.

For those of you who haven't seen that one episode of Seinfeld (where I borrow my analogy from), I'll quickly explain it.

Although what's aesthetically pleasing varies in certain degrees from person-to-person, most people across the board can usually agree on the properties of "ugly". Granted, not everyone is going to have the same opinions on what's ugly or not, but for the most part, we all agree.

(You guys are going to think I'm evil personified for using this example) http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Look at this baby: http://tinyurl.com/3de5s5

Most people would agree that this infant is not pretty to look at. In fact, it would receive many votes in the ugliest baby contest to make it to the nominations.

The parent's of this baby would likely NOT be able to objectively look at their infant son and come to any conclusion at all about it's ugliness. They would be unable to fathom how other people could perceive their baby to be anything BUT beautiful and adorable. Their emotion is too strong.

The people who don't have emotions tied to this particular baby will not see the same beauty that the parents are fawning over. They don't have emotional attachment clouding their view, and although in front of the parents, they might coo and Oooooh and Ahhhhh just to be polite - they are in vast agreement with one another that That Is One Ugly Baby! Kind of like the old phrase "A face only a mother could love". Do you see what I'm getting at?

The people who find the baby to be ugly don't consider the parents to be "incorrect" in thinking their baby is beautiful. They are quick to understand that the emotional attachment is what makes their view different. They are able to see outside of RIGHT vs. WRONG and be more capable of understanding.

The parents, on the other hand - they just can't begin to understand the opposing view of their baby. They think these people must be blind, or just plain ignorant to have come up with their opinions on what Junior looks like. They won't entertain the thought for a split second!

The "problem" of differing perspectives cannot be classified as an illness. These parents aren't ill. They are aesthetically blinded by love, one of the stronger emotions out there. They will never understand how people could perceive their infant to be ugly. Strong emotion prohibits that, as it prohibits them from ever understanding how other people perceive Junior.

quote:

Yes, but in talking about the discussions, I assume we would shed light on how the world would look and how people would have changed.

If people learned to recognize that strong emotional attachment renders them unable to be accepting of other viewpoints, the discussion probably would shed light on how the world might change IF we were able to detach ourselves emotionally from our own opinions. We are not at that point yet regarding opinionated worldviews shaped by either religion or skepticism. And it’s pretty clear which side is clinging to emotion, and which side has little emotion invested in their ideals.

Going back to your last question (thanks for clarifying more):

What do you think the natural side affect of a discussion will be, once everyone decides the world is never going to be like they imagine it, and they must first go and experience how different and challenging everything truly is?

I think it would be very difficult to contrive (beyond guesswork) what the “natural side effects” would be in hypothetical situation like this, a discussion in a hypothetical world where all people respected other’s beliefs and was able to gain clear understanding of views that might conflict with their own.

Believers, who are the majority, will always have strength in numbers, and this will always help justify in their minds that they are of the correct opinion. It builds yet another layer of brick wall to bust down before they can change their mentality of: “Non-believers go to hell and are incorrect in their thinking” TO: “Their rational worldview prohibits them from thinking about God the way I do, due to my high emotional investment towards God.”

And what kind of world would THAT be? It would be a world where people of ALL faiths no longer harbor resentment or prejudice against opposing faiths or skeptics. It would be, as we are describing, “greater awareness”. And it would be, in my opinion, very healthy and progressive for humanity.

Unfortunately, we’re nowhere close to that today.

This method of understanding I described would IN NO WAY require people to make light of their own faith, and would in NO WAY require people to attach themselves to another world view that they aren’t comfortable with, like you suggested I meant when you wrote:

I wouldn't ask anyone to try to let go of themselves entirely to attach to another world view, because I would see that as a sort of suicide, a murder if it happens in the case of an invasion and war.

I feel the same way. There is no way I’d be willing to completely let go of my worldview and attach myself to religion. But I am able to view religious people without thinking they are complete imbeciles and not worthy of consideration, just because I am able to understand that their view carries A LOT of emotional baggage with it, and THAT is what makes these people seem unreasonable to me. Knowing that makes me NOT want to kill them and makes me NOT want to classify them as “the enemy”. It lends me a deeper understanding that it’s not these people I disagree with, per se – it’s their beliefs, and the strong emotional attachment they have to them.

Of course, being pro-active, I am going to take every opportunity to discuss and debate, with the intention of creating awareness towards what I believe in, which is that the world would be a better place to live in if everyone regarded religious beliefs as their own private emotional “pillows”, and not THE LAW that is enforced on other people.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

If people learned to recognize that strong emotional attachment renders them unable to be accepting of other viewpoints, the discussion probably would shed light on how the world might change IF we were able to detach ourselves emotionally from our own opinions.

... I am able to view religious people without thinking they are complete imbeciles and not worthy of consideration, just because I am able to understand that their view carries A LOT of emotional baggage with it, and THAT is what makes these people seem unreasonable to me. Knowing that makes me NOT want to kill them and makes me NOT want to classify them as “the enemy”. It lends me a deeper understanding that it’s not these people I disagree with, per se – it’s their beliefs, and the strong emotional attachment they have to them.

Of course, being pro-active, I am going to take every opportunity to discuss and debate, with the intention of creating awareness towards what I believe in, which is that the world would be a better place to live in if everyone regarded religious beliefs as their own private emotional “pillows”, and not THE LAW that is enforced on other people.

Hear, hear! Intense emotional investment is the strongest barrier against respect towards other opinions, and against acknowledging not necessarily the legitimacy or correctness of alternative views themselves, but their legitimacy or correctness to the person holding them. "There are as many truths as there are people." If someone has an overwhelming emotional reaction or attachment to their own view, it's very difficult to treat other views with objectivity.

AngryFemme, you rox my sox!

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Really we are talking about people of faith, ate.



The faithful, the non-faithful and the infinite variety in between.

quote:

I do see the problem, but I refuse to call it an illness, as I stated in my last post. I like to think of it more like "The Ugly Baby" syndrome, and I think that's a great example to use when we talk about how strong emotions can sometimes warp a person's opinion on something.



And just what event do the emotional attachments originate from? A biased childhood growing environment?

What is it supposed to be shaped by, IE: how do they (faithful people) explain it in their words?

That they've been touched by a higher power?

Things are not always as simple, because some truly believe and truly experience such things as a "religious experience".

This does not narrow the world view, to a faith-based and religious side, at least not to me, but changes the subject of "world views" altogether, to one much more fitting of simply, "what humans can possibly experience in life".



I think it's futile to strive towards creating two main world views and then causing everyone in between to attempt to find security, while the extremists constantly battle for pride. That both excludes the other possibilities, or at least the "all inclusive current reality", as well as dilutes the clarity and uniqueness of the expressions held in each individual world view, as long as they are opposing each other.

What if, in truth, this was not a measure of anything that had to do with the brain, but some kind of decision that we all make consciously, without ever thinking intelligently or emotionally about the subject, but literally deciding in an instant, without the ability to become thoughtfully biased, through a series of childhood blocks or adulthood programming?

I have to stop you here:

What if, in truth, this was not a measure of anything that had to do with the brain, but some kind of decision that we all make consciously, without ever thinking intelligently or emotionally about the subject....

Because conscious thought is completely dependent on the brain. No brain = no conscious thought, whatsoever.

I'm glad you came back to this thread, ate. I thought you forgot about it http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I have company coming, but I will get back to this enjoyable conversation when they leave.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

And just what event do the emotional attachments originate from? A biased childhood growing environment?

There could be several events that led up to them becoming completely co-dependent on an idea that they think is tantamount to them ever being able to feel good in their lives. Perhaps it's just tradition within their families, or perhaps they experienced some sort of an epiphany during or after a major life-altering event of theirs that somehow gave them "a new lease on life". The way the adopted it is going to vary greatly from person to person.

Regardless of where it originated from, heavy emotional co-dependence is the result, and it causes people to relinquish certain parts of their mental faculties over to an outside source. The feel-good aspect of it doesn't outweigh the damage that will inevitably be done when it begins to become clear that these people have reached a point where they can't come to the very simplest conclusions about one thing or another without first consulting their divine outside-of-nature Higher Power.

Ever read up on the psychological mind-fucking a person goes through when they join certain cults? I feel the same applies here, except it's not looked down on with disdain by society because over 3/4 of the population happens to be stuck in the same co-dependent rut.

quote:

Things are not always as simple, because some truly believe and truly experience such things as a "religious experience".

No doubt about it. I've witnessed an otherwise debilitated 80 year old woman who could walk only with the assistance of a cane stand up and sing, dance and flail about wildly when she was at church, feeling the "experience". I don't at all doubt the strong good vibes and good feelings people take away from their religious experiences - I just feel like these same people could find the motivation from within themselves to feel that kind of jubilation and happiness - and then not have to carry with them and exhibit all the negative things that carrying their faith holds, like disdain for other humans who aren't "saved" yet, and having to think in terms of billions and billions of people burning in hell for all eternity.

...Nevermind the good deeds being performed for reasons they believe will merit rewards, and not just 'cause it's the kind thing to do.

quote:

This does not narrow the world view, to a faith-based and religious side, at least not to me, but changes the subject of "world views" altogether, to one much more fitting of simply, "what humans can possibly experience in life".

Yes, I'm afraid it does narrow the worldview, and to quite an extent. Humans can possibly experience many things in life, but completely closing their minds to accepting other people's worldviews would not a positive experience make, in my opinion. At least not for the overall good of society. I don't believe people should lose their individuality and not be able to practice whatever form of worship they can possibly dream up - I just believe that an "awakening" needs to happen in these people who are slaves to their belief systems.

They need to recognize the co-dependency they've developed and the prejudice that was instilled in them when they weren't looking, the two things that has all but rendered them incapable of accepting other ways of life as being equally as righteous and sacred as their own.

It's going to have to be greater than the "To each his own" philosophy. "To each his own" will just be a given, a constant - but it will also be required to recognize how what works best for you doesn't necessarily work best for others, and accepting that these people are no better or worse off than you for not possessing your same beliefs. People will have to be able to admit that the religious beliefs they carry with them are their OWN emotional comfort pillow, not some universal truth and law to judge others by.

The clincher is: They have to be willing to admit that there are other means of "salvation" that can be gained by not following a belief system at all. Why would doing this have to belittle their own methods of belief?

Going back to the very point of this thread: Is religion debatable? It certainly is right now, we see it happening in just about every thread in this forum here. Unfortunately, the discussion is usually circular and unproductive. It's not going anywhere as far as leading people to a greater understanding and a greater awareness of each other. There are far, far too many people who refuse to believe that any other belief system is correct but their own, and too many people holding a silent grudge against an entire other group of people just because they don't "get" what they believe in.

and oh, yeah - Who said anything about creating two main worldviews and making all the fence-straddlers lose out? I certainly didn't suggest that.

You said it would dilute the clarity and uniqueness of OPPOSING views by somehow suppressing expression. I am suggesting that we, and especially religious people, start thinking about it in a new light, and replace the term "opposition" of belief into what it should be called - a difference of belief. Because what would be worth getting up in arms over about a slight difference of opinion? Maybe then the discussions would become more positive and constructive.

i wouldnt say religion is debatable. But its worth it on my part to debate with the idiots trying to find facts and proof in there religion. Its faith, and always has been.

Debate is based on reason, logic, analysis, evidence, and argument; any idea is up for cross-examination and dissection, and any flaw in reasoning or basis for argument is cause for demolition.

In religion, it's a mark of strong faith to believe against any evidence; religion therefore bypasses the burdens of evidence and analysis required in debate. (This is even before we start poking holes in scripture.) So no, religion as a whole is not debatable, because it places itself in a realm where the fundamental methods of Debate are not applied.

Because conscious thought is completely dependent on the brain. No brain = no conscious thought, whatsoever.

And so what is thought? What is consciousness?


Ever read up on the psychological mind-fucking a person goes through when they join certain cults? I feel the same applies here, except it's not looked down on with disdain by society because over 3/4 of the population happens to be stuck in the same co-dependent rut.

I agree, we're all a little crazy because of this, and other things.


No doubt about it.


Yes, and what about those who have experienced the things in question?


I just believe that an "awakening" needs to happen in these people who are slaves to their belief systems.


Are we an exception?

They need to recognize the co-dependency they've developed and the prejudice that was instilled in them when they weren't looking, the two things that has all but rendered them incapable of accepting other ways of life as being equally as righteous and sacred as their own.

What if both sides are saying this to each other?


People will have to be able to admit that the religious beliefs they carry with them are their OWN emotional comfort pillow, not some universal truth and law to judge others by.


Are there any universal truths?

The clincher is: They have to be willing to admit that there are other means of "salvation" that can be gained by not following a belief system at all. Why would doing this have to belittle their own methods of belief?


Because they fear what they don't know?


It certainly is right now, we see it happening in just about every thread in this forum here.

I hope people are learning from it.


and oh, yeah - Who said anything about creating two main worldviews and making all the fence-straddlers lose out? I certainly didn't suggest that.


Is the world view decided by what you say or what you do?

If it's the latter, than are there truly any people in the middle?

Don't we all have our defining moments?

I am suggesting that we, and especially religious people, start thinking about it in a new light.

It seems religious people are a new thing, while the "religious" people we think of in the past times, were actually nothing like those of today.

And so what is thought? What is consciousness?

Consciousness: A hotly debated issue. May never be fully defined to the point of everyone being in agreement of the definition.
:D

Simple answer:
Consciousness is the state or condition of being conscious.

'Thought' is the result of the many independent processes in the brain that gives the "agent" a picture of the world and a personal subjectivity to it.

(This too is arguable)

Yes, and what about those who have experienced the things in question?

What about them? I've already recognized those people, and didn't even try to attempt to deny that these experiences really happen, from their point of view. I went on to say that there are many other perfectly logical conclusions these same people could come to regarding their emotional experiences without having to attach a God-subject to it.

Finally - It wouldn't even be practical to suggest that these people try to find alternative explanations if it didn't lead to an unhealthy co-dependency. However, it does, so why not explore other avenues of reason?


Are we an exception?

Depends! Are you a slave to your belief system? I have always prided myself in being open to other beliefs outside of the ones I presently support. YES! That even includes spiritual ones. Just because nothing THUS FAR has led me to believe that it is necessary to use the supernatural as an explanation for the mysteries of life doesn't mean that I am not willing to explore the possibilities. It just so happens that there is usually a more simpler, logical explanation that trumps the supernatural one.

Believe me, if I ever had a personal experience that totally refuted every.single.concept. I ever held to be "true", I'd be on here lickety-split making one of my typical long-winded posts about it. I happen to enjoy absurdities, even when the said absurdity might make it appear as though I've been ignorant all along. I'd have no qualms about fessing up to it simply because I don't let powerful emotions cloud my realizations. Also, because I live to poke fun at myself.
:D


What if both sides are saying this to each other?

Let's keep it real here, ate. Now you're suggesting that both sides have the emotional co-dependency involved in their beliefs, and that both sides feel prejudiced towards the other. You know good and well that it's not balanced out like that.

Show me an atheist who believes his life is of higher value than a religious person, and I will show you an atheist-disguised-as-a-very-hopeful-agnostic who secretly wishes for an afterlife.



Are there any universal truths?

Not in the context of what we're discussing. There will never be One Train of Thought regarding spirituality or the lack thereof. And there doesn't have to be! People can believe in different things as long as they recognize that their belief system is not the correct belief system that all people should adhere to if they don't want to burn in hell or suffer other consequences. This again defines what I feel is really intended for the "To Each His Own" philosophy.


Because they fear what they don't know?

Yes! Exactly! And this fear shouldn't be ridiculed, or laughed at - because we all fear to a certain extent what we don't know or have never experienced.

But being willing to admit "I fear rational thought" is usually far beyond what people of faith are ready to commit to. In their mindsets, even being willing to consider other trains of thought is kind of a slap in the face to their deity, or at the very least - a display of "weakness" in themselves for not being able to cling to the faith no matter what is presented to them.




Is the world view decided by what you say or what you do?

If it's the latter, than are there truly any people in the middle?

Don't we all have our defining moments?

1. Both, unless you're one of those people who don't practice what they preach.

2. Those middle people are usually the examples of those who don't practice what they preach.

3. Yes! And those defining moments should be left wide open to explore every.single.possiblity so that "defining moments" continue to evolve, the more we learn. I'd personally never want to be stuck in a "defining moment" for all of eternity. I hope my defining moments continue to change progressively until the day I expire.


It seems religious people are a new thing, while the "religious" people we think of in the past times, were actually nothing like those of today.

I think they're quite the same, actually. The only thing that has fundamentally changed is their environments, and the # of people surrounding them who dare to hold opposing beliefs.

Simple answer:
Consciousness is the state or condition of being conscious.


And what is conscious about a human body?


'Thought' is the result of the many independent processes in the brain that gives the "agent" a picture of the world and a personal subjectivity to it.

So what experiences that?


What about them? I've already recognized those people, and didn't even try to attempt to deny that these experiences really happen, from their point of view.

I went on to say that there are many other perfectly logical conclusions these same people could come to regarding their emotional experiences without having to attach a God-subject to it.


What if a large portion of these people are not attributing it to god?


Finally - It wouldn't even be practical to suggest that these people try to find alternative explanations.

What if this large portion had actually come to their conclusions by attempting just this?

How do you explain to them what is the real content of their subjective experience?

Is it not real? No matter what it is?

Or is it very different from your point of view at the moment?


Depends! Are you a slave to your belief system?

What is an acceptable belief system? Is it one which can adapt to it's environment with ease?


Believe me, if I ever had a personal experience that totally refuted every.single.concept. I ever held to be "true", I'd be on here lickety-split making one of my typical long-winded posts about it.

Do you think the universe is beg enough to adapt to your belief system if you decide you would like to experience that?

I happen to enjoy absurdities, even when the said absurdity might make it appear as though I've been ignorant all along.

But you don't believe those absurdities have any grounds in reality?

I'd have no qualms about fessing up to it simply because I don't let powerful emotions cloud my realizations. Also, because I live to poke fun at myself.
:D

Now...would you ever "decide" to experience something like this?

Let's keep it real here, ate. Now you're suggesting that both sides have the emotional co-dependency involved in their beliefs, and that both sides feel prejudiced towards the other. You know good and well that it's not balanced out like that.

I think some have the dependency on their emotive expressions , and some have a dependency on their materialistic creations, and that each group has their share, but the majority differs just slightly.

But in essence they are both similar groups that have separated as a result of the focusing on a very small and irrationally fed fear or neurosis.

But in the end, where all acting over emotionally, if anyone wasn't emotionally off-set in this, they'd pick no side, and would remain in the middle understanding what everyone was showing about life, they wouldn't react to things just like their direct opposite, choosing to uphold their "groups" belief, forfeiting over their individual openness to all people, by labeling themselves and restricting themselves, to some extent, to intelligent interactions with only that group of people.

Taking on characters and artificially created personalities, in which we try to identify ourselves by how close to "real" our "belief" systems are, is just a way to explain your own actions as well as degrade the idea of "real" and turn it into something that can be related to government or some other establishment.

Do you really think noticing how we are different, by applying an imaginary system of linguistics over our relationships with each other, is really noticing reality on an honest scale, or one that cannot help but be biased and limited by our own inherent inability to de-focus on the self, and one's possessions or "applied" labels or other attachments to name.


Show me an atheist who believes his life is of higher value than a religious person, and I will show you an atheist-disguised-as-a-very-hopeful-agnostic who secretly wishes for an afterlife.

There's just a bunch of people, anyone can believe in their own higher power, or lack of one, their still choosing to create a reality based upon what they don't yet know about.



Not in the context of what we're discussing.
There will never be One Train of Thought regarding spirituality or the lack thereof. And there doesn't have to be! People can believe in different things as long as they recognize that their belief system is not the correct belief system that all people should adhere to if they don't want to burn in hell or suffer other consequences. This again defines what I feel is really intended for the "To Each His Own" philosophy.


So would the truth be that no one is correct? How then do you create a perfect train of thought? By not thinking as we know it? It does sound like that.


But being willing to admit "I fear rational thought" is usually far beyond what people of faith are ready to commit to. In their mindsets, even being willing to consider other trains of thought is kind of a slap in the face to their deity, or at the very least - a display of "weakness" in themselves for not being able to cling to the faith no matter what is presented to them.

But don't they use rational thought all the time? How do they go to the bathroom?


1. Both, unless you're one of those people who don't practice what they preach.


Can you really predict every decision that could happen to you?

Even if you could get a lot in your head, what would you think about how you would react to something that you simply hadn't thought of yet? I mean we have social systems that we rely on in order to remain acting in an acceptable manner, but what about the areas of experience or situations that are outside of the scope of what that outlines?

So can we ever really have a world view that correctly defines the world, if in the first place what we're focusing on is simply something we created while existing in this world?

Sorry, ramble.


2. Those middle people are usually the examples of those who don't practice what they preach.


I would hope for your sake, everything falls apart if that's not true.


3. Yes! And those defining moments should be left wide open to explore every.single.possiblity so that "defining moments" continue to evolve, the more we learn. I'd personally never want to be stuck in a "defining moment" for all of eternity. I hope my defining moments continue to change progressively until the day I expire.

Can you become aware enough of the moment to change the degree of your evolution by controlling how you *choose* to react to certain situations?

Can you use words to describe how you want to evolve?

How would one put it?


I think they're quite the same, actually. The only thing that has fundamentally changed is their environments, and the # of people surrounding them who dare to hold opposing beliefs.

So why are they still around? Doesn't everything change?

if anyone wasn't emotionally off-set in this, they'd pick no side, and would remain in the middle understanding what everyone was showing about life, they wouldn't react to things just like their direct opposite, choosing to uphold their "groups" belief, forfeiting over their individual openness to all people, by labeling themselves and restricting themselves, to some extent, to intelligent interactions with only that group of people.

One side has a heavier emotional attachment than the other. I disagree that one would be forced to remain neutral towards a subject if they didn't have emotions guiding their reasoning. Upholding "group" belief doesn't require forfeiture of individual openness (I assume you mean acceptance here). And finally, being in strong disagreement with someone does not render intelligent interactions impossible.

Have you and I been at each other's throats here? Nope. :) Our two separate belief systems couldn't be any more far apart, wouldn't you say?

You don't have to muster up much emotion in order to abandon dogmatic or supernatural ideas. And when those non-dogmatic, non-supernatural ideas are attacked, there's not a lot of emotion involved in defending them. It doesn't mean that non-believers are emotionless, unfeeling robots. Just that they don't call upon certain emotions to guide their thinking processes.

So would the truth be that no one is correct? How then do you create a perfect train of thought? By not thinking as we know it? It does sound like that.

I didn't think we were focusing on what's correct, but what is debatable here. There is no such thing as the "perfect train of thought", and that's not what I've been trying to convey in my posts. It wouldn't take having to tear down "thinking as we know it" in order to make debate more constructive. It would take both sides agreeing to agree on the validity of the other's belief systems.

So far, that hasn't been done yet where religious debate is concerned. For if it's between two different religious people, they are too busy discrediting the other one's God to really gain understanding of what the other person has to say, and why he/she believes in what they say. If it's between a believer and a non-believer, the believer is unable to detach themselves from their feelings of superiority and righteousness long enough to gain an honest understanding of what the other (non-believing) person has to say.

I can't hit every single one of the points you made in your last post, because just about everything ended up as another question, and most of those questions you're asking me directly could have been surmised by reading the first umpteen paragraphs of what I've posted so far in your thread. I think I've contributed my opinion on the topic "Is Religion Debateable" and made clear my personal thoughts on it. Feel free to comment on my beliefs, of course. I won't take offense at all, since they don't trigger a heavy emotional response from me to begin with.

I do think it would be fair (in the interest of your thread) for you to address Squakey's point, since it is a sound one and oh-so-relevant to the topic at hand.

You don't have to muster up much emotion in order to abandon dogmatic or supernatural ideas. And when those non-dogmatic, non-supernatural ideas are attacked, there's not a lot of emotion involved in defending them. It doesn't mean that non-believers are emotionless, unfeeling robots. Just that they don't call upon certain emotions to guide their thinking processes.

I understand what you mean.


It wouldn't take having to tear down "thinking as we know it" in order to make debate more constructive.


So then it would take a certain aspect of the thinking we are doing, and then would it be a different aspect of thought and expression for each person?

It would be interesting to learn that there are two separate belief systems on earth, and two separate groups of people for each one, and yet that there was no more difference between each person in their individual groups than there was between each group.


So far, that hasn't been done yet where religious debate is concerned.


It has been done, just not by the planet as a whole.


For if it's between two different religious people, they are too busy discrediting the other one's God to really gain understanding of what the other person has to say, and why he/she believes in what they say.

I see that in scientific debates too.


If it's between a believer and a non-believer, the believer is unable to detach themselves from their feelings of superiority and righteousness long enough to gain an honest understanding of what the other (non-believing) person has to say.


What about the righteous and stuck up "non-believers" and the humble and calm "believers"?

A possibility?


Feel free to comment on my beliefs, of course. I won't take offense at all, since they don't trigger a heavy emotional response from me to begin with.

Prepare for a possible aftershock..unless of course your beliefs are sound... :] I think they are already, but you have more to respond to than I could in the moments that I've been replying to this thread.

I think I agree with Squakey.

Debatable... No. Agreeable? Deffinately.

The existence of god can be debated, but not yet proven therefore any debate over the existence of god will have no definitive answer. You can argue till the cows come home, but personal beliefs are impossible to waver considering the lack of hard evidence.

But, can religion be debated? How so? The validity? The importance? Which one is better than the other? It's sort of an open ended question.

Does anyone ever benefit from it?

From debating religion? Debating religion and talking about it is even more beneficial than the practice (IMO). You get to hear all sorts of different opinions that you wouldn't normally in a place of worship.

If so, are there ways to go about it positively and make sure that everyone benefits, as well as ways to bring out negativity and only cause further misunderstandings on both sides?

That's what we're trying to do here on &Totse. It's not easy, but we do our best.

Cheers,
Lost

Prepare for a possible aftershock..unless of course your beliefs are sound... :]

I'm bracing myself.

(wonders: What could he possibly mean by aftershock?!)

Is religion debatable?

No. People who truly believes in a god are weakminded and can't handle the truth, that after we die we're just gone. Therefor they push away all common sense and reality, and comfort themselfs in their own little fairytale and refuses to listen to common fucking sense.

People certainly can benefit from religion. Its those that turn to religion out of fear, those that convert and basically kiss ass all their lives to escape being thrown into the hell fire that don't really benefit. Their motivation isn't in the right place, to those people that turn to religion to structure their moral values and live happier, more fullfilling lives, good for them.