Page 7 of 9 [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Sep 2016, 9:48 pm

Bald is a hair state--the most extreme example being a total lack of hair--totally bald.

It shouldn't be a hair/skin color--because people's heads are different colors when they are bald.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

01 Sep 2016, 10:10 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
The Catholic Church did NOT "come to believe" that the Earth was the center of the Universe. That was the normal belief of every human culture since the Stone Age from long before Christianity. The normal belief because anyone looking up in the sky can see that every celestial object (stars, the sun, moon, etc) appears to revolve around where we are standing. There were rare occassional philosophers in both east and west who would suggest that "maybe its not the stars that revolve around us, but that it's the earth that is spinning and that that gives the appearance that the stars are revolving around us". The thinkers who suggested that were always pilloried (figuratively, and often also literally).

fair enough. although "always pilloried" sounds like an exaggeration to me. maybe it's just that i don't know enough or don't remember enough, but as far as i remember there was no persecution against heliocentrism in ancient greece

i still have the impression that it was generally not a controversy in antiquity (meaning, it simply wasn't a question that any historically significant person was asking) until it became a mathematical question (which actually was a contentious thing back then, regardless if was about astronomy or anything else). and then the church, in turn, turned geocentrism into dogma. i think it's interesting because, despite the widespread idea that "god lives in the sky", it was more important for the church that the center of the universe would be what he created. not what gives life (the sun), but life itself (the earth). rather odd for a theocentric philosophy

Quote:
What the Catholic Church did was to latch onto one particular geocentric cosmology and make it a tenet of the faith. The cosmology of Aristotle. The real "irony" is that Aristotle was not in the Bible, and was not a Christian, nor even a Jew, but was a Pagan.

yes, that's more or less what i meant. "came to believe" meaning "turned it into part of the faith". more than passively having a sense that the earth was the center of everything, you were supposed to have faith that it was the center of the universe, no matter if there was evidence against it. another way how christianity evolved to suit paradoxical political interests


_________________
404


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,778
Location: USA

01 Sep 2016, 10:30 pm

In the technical sense that a baby doesn't believe very much of anything, yes. In the sense antithiests use to argue that thiesm is learned from indoctrination, no, not at all. Actually most people are predisposed to believing in the supernatural, exact models for God are just developed later in life, and the way it's developed is largely a rational rather than empirical process.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

01 Sep 2016, 11:35 pm

anagram wrote:
you life a wicked life instead if it suits you better. it's what god intended for you, after all


You intentionally do wrong, and believe that is Christian? :|



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

01 Sep 2016, 11:38 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
You intentionally do wrong, and believe that is Christian? :|

i suppose not, but if you do believe you're predestined to damnation (because you already tend to do bad things without even trying or wanting to anyway), then why would you even try to "be christian"? either you keep doing bad things as you please or you seek another religious denomination for you to follow

to me the concept of strict predestination only seems to benefit the self-righteous, at the expense of everyone else. if the idea is to encourage everyone to behave decently, then it seems rather counterproductive


_________________
404


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

02 Sep 2016, 12:55 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
To me, one must actively not believe in gods in order to be an atheist..

Depends what a god is. I can't actively disbelieve in every flavor of god. It's not physically possible. I can disbelieve only those I've already heard of.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Sep 2016, 1:03 am

Campin_Cat wrote:
No. I think different people define / believe-in God, differently----and, IMO, defining / believing-in Him differently, doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means we're different. Also, it might not matter to God how we define / believe-in Him, just as long as we DO.

I think that at the very foundation, the Christian God, Muslim God, Judaic God, etc., are all, basically, the same----but, maybe, the DETAILS are different.

Well - notwithstanding the Bahá'í (another Abrahamic religion) concept of god, this still leaves out - at the very least - the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh gods, several of which are either female or genderless, and thus not covered by the moniker "Him".



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,576
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Sep 2016, 5:58 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
It is not a redundancy--Agnostic Atheist.. An agnostic is a skeptic; an atheist is not skeptical about his/her atheism.

Babies are not born atheists....because the concept of "gods" hasn't entered into their brains yet.

To me, it's an ideology of conscious belief after a certain amount of thought.

To me, one must actively not believe in gods in order to be an atheist.

At the age of one day, all a kid believes in is sleepism and milkism.

That's what I believe. A baby is not a willful, conscious atheist, he/she doesn't subscribe to the ideology.


What I meant is that this whole thread has been about language and definitions, and in particular one that's not serving clear communication well these days.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

02 Sep 2016, 9:18 am

anagram wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
I think that at the very foundation, the Christian God, Muslim God, Judaic God, etc., are all, basically, the same----but, maybe, the DETAILS are different.

oddly (historically speaking, belief aside), that foundation probably comes from a short period of ancient egypt when a pharaoh decided to worship the sun and nothing but the sun (if i'm not mistaken), and then it spread all over the world...

Yeah, I would have to put my belief WAAAAAAY aside, to say that's "probable". I don't believe it; if, for-no-other-reason, than because if that pharaoh is the one in your Wiki link, there were MANY peoples that populated this earth WAY before he ever came-along. The Bible has ALOT of people who chose to believe / follow the God of The Bible----ONE God----and, anyone who only considers ONE source (the story of the pharaoh, for instance) when making a decision (ANY decision), is NOT smart, IMO. I mean, even if someone has never read The Bible, do they think that no peoples were alive, BEFORE him? If nothing else, SOMEBODY had to be alive to be keeping a calendar, up 'til then, to say he existed in 13-hundred-and-something, BC!

I only skimmed your article----I don't have the "brain space", right now, to consider it, further. I'm VERY glad you posted it, though, as I bookmarked it, and hope to get back to it, sometime.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

02 Sep 2016, 10:34 am

friedmacguffins wrote:
You intentionally do wrong, and believe that is Christian? :|

anagram wrote:
i suppose not...

Are you contrite, in other words, conscientious about it?



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

02 Sep 2016, 11:01 am

GGPViper wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
No. I think different people define / believe-in God, differently----and, IMO, defining / believing-in Him differently, doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means we're different. Also, it might not matter to God how we define / believe-in Him, just as long as we DO.

I think that at the very foundation, the Christian God, Muslim God, Judaic God, etc., are all, basically, the same----but, maybe, the DETAILS are different.

Well - notwithstanding the Bahá'í (another Abrahamic religion) concept of god, this still leaves out - at the very least - the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh gods, several of which are either female or genderless, and thus not covered by the moniker "Him".

No, I didn't leave anybody out because I use "Him" to refer to God. I call God "Him" because that's what I'm USED TO----BUT, I don't believe that EVERYBODY has to call God, "Him"; I think people should be able to call God whatever they want ("Him", "Her", or even "It")!



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

02 Sep 2016, 12:15 pm

anagram wrote:
i think it's interesting because, despite the widespread idea that "god lives in the sky", it was more important for the church that the center of the universe would be what he created. not what gives life (the sun), but life itself (the earth). rather odd for a theocentric philosophy

I'm thinking it wouldn't have mattered that the sun was "in the sky" where God was----and they didn't, IMO, believe that the sun "gave life" (but that, GOD did)----they thought it best to give highest regard to what they felt was God's greatest accomplishment (the earth). That doesn't seem odd for a theocentric philosophy, because to love God, would be to love what He created. Now, one could argue that God created the sun, as well, so why didn't they choose IT to be the center of the universe----but, to them, I'm thinking, the sun was just the sun; whereas, practically EVERYTHING else that God created was on EARTH.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

02 Sep 2016, 12:22 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Are you contrite, in other words, conscientious about it?

:?:

i'm talking hypotheticals. i was raised catholic (no strict predestination, no talk of hell or the devil or anything, just "do good and respect everybody"), and i'm not religious in any way as an adult


_________________
404


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

02 Sep 2016, 12:28 pm

(I beg your pardon, for the grammatical corrections. Noisy, in my background.)

Campin_Cat wrote:
the sun was "in the sky" where God was


Is that sun uncomfortable. Does it seem to be at the wrong place and wrong time. From what have you drawn your comparison.

One of the very first assumptions of Christian philosophy is that the material world was made perfect and with a purpose.

People inherently assume that it should be put to order -- an order which exists apart from the concept of nature, as we now see it.

And, the mission of many religions is to restore that to its perfect function, a sort of dreamtime, in which intent effects action. That seems instinctual to all of mankind, or, at least, the altruists.

friedmacguffins wrote:
Are you contrite, in other words, conscientious about it?

anagram wrote:
i'm talking hypotheticals. i was raised catholic (no strict predestination, no talk of hell or the devil or anything, just "do good and respect everybody"), and i'm not religious in any way as an adult

Must you be trained to do well, or do all people have a concept of sanctity.

For instance, does a savage know the meaning of murder and theft?

Is it a social construct, or part of the hardware of his physical body?

Further, should most people seem similar, in their religious leanings, even in spite of distance, time, and culture?



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

02 Sep 2016, 4:23 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
(I beg your pardon, for the grammatical corrections. Noisy, in my background.)

Campin_Cat wrote:
the sun was "in the sky" where God was


Is that sun uncomfortable. Does it seem to be at the wrong place and wrong time. From what have you drawn your comparison.

One of the very first assumptions of Christian philosophy is that the material world was made perfect and with a purpose.

People inherently assume that it should be put to order -- an order which exists apart from the concept of nature, as we now see it.

And, the mission of many religions is to restore that to its perfect function, a sort of dreamtime, in which intent effects action. That seems instinctual to all of mankind, or, at least, the altruists.

I have no idea what you're talking about----especially, since you only quoted those few words. Anagram and I were having a conversation about ancient Egyptians, for the last couple of pages----I didn't say any of what I said, was MY belief.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,127
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Sep 2016, 4:48 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
"Is it true that we're all born atheists?"

Wikipedia wrote:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

If the OP is going-by the BROADEST sense, stated above, then I think that means that one is born an atheist (absence of belief), because I don't think one can have a belief, until they know / understand that belief----therefore, they are ABSENT of it, until they acquire knowledge. If, however, the OP defines "atheism" in the LESS broadly way, as stated in the quote, I don't feel a newborn can reject a belief----again, until one knows what they are rejecting; likewise, in the "narrower sense" (I don't think a baby can have "the position").

That being said, because of my strong belief / faith in God, I believe people are born "knowing" God----in the sense that God sends our souls, here----NOT in the sense that we are born theists, either, though. To me, a theist is someone who has CHOSEN to believe-in / follow God, and IMO, a baby can't choose until it is taught choices----and, if it is true that we are born with the knowledge, that doesn't mean we will believe it.

Do you think it is always specifically your god that they know in that sense?

No. I think different people define / believe-in God, differently----and, IMO, defining / believing-in Him differently, doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means we're different. Also, it might not matter to God how we define / believe-in Him, just as long as we DO.

I think that at the very foundation, the Christian God, Muslim God, Judaic God, etc., are all, basically, the same----but, maybe, the DETAILS are different.


The foundation for those probably is essentially the same, however I was more thinking of polytheistic beliefs...where multiple gods are acknowledged not just one 'true' one. That is the kind of spirituality I'd be interested in should I gain belief in any form of existence of gods or spiritual entities...but as for now not really sure one way or another. I don't think science can really prove without a doubt one way or another if things exist on different planes of existence, or can influence the physical world at all...which I imagine is the only way gods could feasibly exist.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.