Page 3 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 May 2010, 11:55 pm

greenblue wrote:
people here however can give you some tips that might be helpful, what AG said seems to be very helpful in that regard, as it is about considering other spiritual beliefs besides one single religion and one single denomination, it seems to be a good way to start, I do agree that a belief without a hell seems to be a better belief, but the choice is still yours, and you do have the freedom and the right to do so, and whatever you see it works better for you I could only hope that that would be satisfactory enough.

Right, and gina, if I were going to pick a religion to start with, I would start unitarian universalist. There are good reasons too:
1) UUs don't discriminate but rather tolerate everybody.
2) UUs believe in exploring all faith traditions, and so by associating with them, you will allow yourself to understand the theistic landscape better.
3) UUs don't force any dogma down your throat, and will give you the freedom you might want to explore the issue at your pace.
4) UUs will provide somewhat of a community.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

28 May 2010, 12:01 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Evidence Please?



someone had to say that :P

:D :lol: :lol:
Oh goodness, Fnord has been gone a long time.

And he is still missed.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

28 May 2010, 2:21 am

Image
"Love with your heart; use your head for everything else."
:lol:


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

28 May 2010, 3:22 am

I would say, use both. =.= If humans were only brain, we'd be closer to robots in terms of operations. If we were all heart, we'd be no better than beasts living off of our instincts. I'd say a balance or a mix is preferable.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

28 May 2010, 3:50 am

greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Follow your brains, not your heart.

Following your brains doesn't make you happier though.


It most certainly does. People who are whimsical heart followers often date the wrong people, spend their savings on frivolous things, speak cruelly to others and generally make a mess of things because their heart says "good idea!".

Ethical rationalism is the basis for a a just society. The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a prime example of such reasoning, and its one of the rare points that pearlism and the bible agree.

In fact, cautions against heartful living is embodied in Aesop's fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 May 2010, 3:56 am

Fuzzy wrote:

Ethical rationalism is the basis for a a just society. The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a prime example of such reasoning, and its one of the rare points that pearlism and the bible agree.

In fact, cautions against heartful living is embodied in Aesop's fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant.


I prefer the Rule: Don't do unto others what you hate done unto by others.

ruveyn



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

28 May 2010, 4:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:

Ethical rationalism is the basis for a a just society. The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a prime example of such reasoning, and its one of the rare points that pearlism and the bible agree.

In fact, cautions against heartful living is embodied in Aesop's fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant.


I prefer the Rule: Don't do unto others what you hate done unto by others.

ruveyn


There is definitely some variability in appropriate action. I dont mind other people ignoring me because I think its fine that I ignore them for instance.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

28 May 2010, 4:49 am

no one even knows what jesus's surname was.
there must have been plenty of jesus's walking the streets back then.
how do they know they are talking about the right one when they do not even know what his last name was?
i know he was adopted because his mother was a virgin, but there are no records that pertain to adoption back then as far as i know.

i read once in a newspaper that archeologists had found god in some hole they were digging, but i never saw any further stories develop from it.

i thought there was a shop called "bibles galore" but i looked for it on the internet and found nothing. i think they threw in a free koraan if you bought 2 or more bibles but i must have dreamed it.

oh well, i will look for the truth later when i am not so busy.



Aimless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,187

28 May 2010, 6:50 am

b9 wrote:
no one even knows what jesus's surname was.
there must have been plenty of jesus's walking the streets back then.
how do they know they are talking about the right one when they do not even know what his last name was?
i know he was adopted because his mother was a virgin, but there are no records that pertain to adoption back then as far as i know.

i read once in a newspaper that archeologists had found god in some hole they were digging, but i never saw any further stories develop from it.

i thought there was a shop called "bibles galore" but i looked for it on the internet and found nothing. i think they threw in a free koraan if you bought 2 or more bibles but i must have dreamed it.

oh well, i will look for the truth later when i am not so busy.


I'm not sure they even had surnames back then. I think it was just like so and so of somewhere or something. I read a great book by a biblical historian/archeologist who offers evidence that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pantera. Sorry, special interest. The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor. I know his son. It talks about the Davidic line and Jesus' claim to the throne. Very interesting book. Remember the ossuary? Dr. Tabor was directly involved in it's investigation. It's true the name Jesus was as common as dirt back then.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 May 2010, 7:46 am

Aimless wrote:

I'm not sure they even had surnames back then. I think it was just like so and so of somewhere or something. I read a great book by a biblical historian/archeologist who offers evidence that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pantera. Sorry, special interest. The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor. I know his son. It talks about the Davidic line and Jesus' claim to the throne. Very interesting book. Remember the ossuary? Dr. Tabor was directly involved in it's investigation. It's true the name Jesus was as common as dirt back then.


The nomenclature was: X son of Y. Hence Y'shuah bar Yosephy.

My name in Hebrew is Ruveyn bar Reb Yoseph. Yoseph was my father's name in Hebrew. He was Yoseph bar Reb Moishe.


ruveyn



Aimless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,187

28 May 2010, 7:55 am

That's right I forgot. The "of a place" came later. My surname used to have a de in front of it. Norman.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

28 May 2010, 11:26 am

Why do people always talk about feelings and logic like they're mutually exclusive? Maybe it's not about telling your heart to stfu and it's more about getting deeper into your logic. I have absolutely no feeling that religion could be right, so it's not that I ignore my heart, it's that my heart isn't telling me that in the first place. So yeah, keep doing some soul searching til your dillemma is settled for certain.



Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

28 May 2010, 1:51 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Overkill wrote:
I think near-death experiences are very convincing because most people who have them describe them as extremely vivid, and thus, not what one would expect from a hallucination, and because they remain so adamantly convinced that the experience was real and not a hallucination. I would think that if they really could be written off as hallucinations, more atheists and agnostics who have a NDE would be convinced of this, but I've yet to hear a single case where this has happened. Instead, most NDE'ers are convinced that the experience was real, that God exists, and that the afterlife exists, regardless of how they felt before the NDE. So they may not be proof of an afterlife, but for me, they remain convincing evidence.

Well, spiritual experiences and conversion experiences are often described the same way, but I've heard of people deconverting after having them.

I don't think that these are convincing evidence though. I don't know what one should expect from a hallucination, but vivid hallucinations are described as happening as a result of taking certain drugs. So, clearly this is in the brain's capability, since all drugs do is alter the working of the mechanism, but they can't grant totally new powers.

Even further, subjective alteration isn't a really good argument. The human brain is screwed up. If you've seen how they can be taken apart, then I would see no reason to trust something that could easily be an error report.


Yeah, but the thing is, I can think of nobody who "deconverted" after having a NDE. I'll have to look up the data on this again, but it's extremely rare. Besides, I don't think converting to a religion and converting after having a NDE are exactly the same thing. Atheists and agnostics who convert to Christianity or Islam search out the religion willingly, while people who have NDE's are having an experience thrust upon them against their will. Logically, there should be more skeptics among them since it's not like they're "searching" or even trying to find some sort of religion or spirituality. Instead, virtually all of them are convinced.

Also, there's other, more convincing evidence from a NDE. For example, people who have been blind from birth having a NDE and somehow seeing perfectly during it. Given that people who are blind from birth don't even dream in images, I can't think of any reason they'd have a vivid visual hallucination unless it was real. In addition, people have verified events, conversations and the locations of objects while they were out of their body that turn out to be verified afterwards.

As for hallucinations, I've never understand how someone could have a hallucination when all brain activity has stopped and the EEG has essentially flatlined. Maybe someone more scientifically inclined could explain that to me, as it never really made sense.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

28 May 2010, 2:31 pm

Overkill wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Overkill wrote:
I think near-death experiences are very convincing because most people who have them describe them as extremely vivid, and thus, not what one would expect from a hallucination, and because they remain so adamantly convinced that the experience was real and not a hallucination. I would think that if they really could be written off as hallucinations, more atheists and agnostics who have a NDE would be convinced of this, but I've yet to hear a single case where this has happened. Instead, most NDE'ers are convinced that the experience was real, that God exists, and that the afterlife exists, regardless of how they felt before the NDE. So they may not be proof of an afterlife, but for me, they remain convincing evidence.

Well, spiritual experiences and conversion experiences are often described the same way, but I've heard of people deconverting after having them.

I don't think that these are convincing evidence though. I don't know what one should expect from a hallucination, but vivid hallucinations are described as happening as a result of taking certain drugs. So, clearly this is in the brain's capability, since all drugs do is alter the working of the mechanism, but they can't grant totally new powers.

Even further, subjective alteration isn't a really good argument. The human brain is screwed up. If you've seen how they can be taken apart, then I would see no reason to trust something that could easily be an error report.


Yeah, but the thing is, I can think of nobody who "deconverted" after having a NDE. I'll have to look up the data on this again, but it's extremely rare. Besides, I don't think converting to a religion and converting after having a NDE are exactly the same thing. Atheists and agnostics who convert to Christianity or Islam search out the religion willingly, while people who have NDE's are having an experience thrust upon them against their will. Logically, there should be more skeptics among them since it's not like they're "searching" or even trying to find some sort of religion or spirituality. Instead, virtually all of them are convinced.

Also, there's other, more convincing evidence from a NDE. For example, people who have been blind from birth having a NDE and somehow seeing perfectly during it. Given that people who are blind from birth don't even dream in images, I can't think of any reason they'd have a vivid visual hallucination unless it was real. In addition, people have verified events, conversations and the locations of objects while they were out of their body that turn out to be verified afterwards.

As for hallucinations, I've never understand how someone could have a hallucination when all brain activity has stopped and the EEG has essentially flatlined. Maybe someone more scientifically inclined could explain that to me, as it never really made sense.


My hypothesis is that those who are inclined to believe WILL believe. An atheist or agnostic who experience God through NDE (or through any means, for that matter) has an undeniable experience that forces them to take a position. Either it really was what it appeared to be, or it was the consequence of the brain shutting down, those last few neurons firing while they have a little energy left to burn off. The atheist MIGHT choose to believe in God from that point forward. Other experiences, such as Saul of Tarsus and the "Road to Damascus" experience, carry with them the same call to take a stand. Saul could just as easily claimed he had a stroke that caused him to go blind and his experience with God was just the effect of sickness on his brain. Being a religiously devout person to begin with, though, he accepted the conviction that what he experienced was more than illusion. He went from being a person who hated Christian to one who taught Christians.

I've never been dead before, but I did have an interesting experience once. I was in a car accident once that really shouldn't have been survivable. The car was flattened and landed upside down. I remember when it happened, everything seemed to slow down, and everything I saw took on this kind of bluish tint, really hazy like in a dream. I remember thinking I was about to die, and I heard a voice saying "No, you aren't going to die. Open the door and step out." I remember feeling very calm, and I'm not sure why but what "the voice" said just seemed to make perfect sense at the time. I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, tried the door a couple times before it opened, casually stepped out, and the next thing I knew I was face down in the dirt. My friend who was driving was thrown from the car onto the road and was hurt a little more than I was. But even so, I didn't have anything more than a few bruises and some aching muscles the next day. I was staying with my grandparents at the time, and I had to throw up after the adrenaline rush wore off. The driver had a few scrapes but was otherwise fine.

That I lived at all, considering there wasn't much left of the car, in and of itself was a miracle. But stepping out of a fast moving vehicle in mid-flip on the advice of some etherial voice--call it God, the Holy Spirit, a guardian angel--just as casually as if the car was parked and walking away with barely a scratch on me makes what happened even more extraordinary.

And, you know? I'm not even the kind of person who even NEEDS evidence to know God. Even if that had never happened, I'd have been no less convinced. But if I'd ever had any reason to doubt, that alone would have cleared things up.

There have been other experiences since then, but nothing ever quite that profound.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 May 2010, 3:01 pm

AngelRho wrote:
My hypothesis is that those who are inclined to believe WILL believe.


"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." - Gaius Julius Caesar



Kiley
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 879

28 May 2010, 3:15 pm

That's why it is called Faith. We don't always have all the answers and reaching out for a higher power is a very human response to uncertainty. It doesn't have to be contrary to science. You don't have to throw out all your beliefs and logic to have a religious faith. There are other options beyond religious fundamentalism.