Page 4 of 20 [ 314 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 20  Next

DeVoTeE
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 337

03 Mar 2008, 2:45 pm

I didn't have a faith until i joined a UCC church in 1988. the church treats the bible like a set of stories. the god it believes in does not discriminate, so we have a mix of gay and straight people in our population. although i haven't read the bible, it is my church's belief that we can question our minister's beliefs. I still participate in a few church activities, like the feeding the homeless. If this is practicing christianity, then i'm doing a good job.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

03 Mar 2008, 6:36 pm

Faith means believing in something while knowing you could be wrong. Faith means to surrender the possibility of knowledge. If it were possible to know & have facts, faith would not be faith. If one has ultimate knowledge of everything, faith would be the one concept forever out of reach.

I was born Catholic, and now attend a fairly liberal Baptist church that de-emphasizes the importance of demoninations. I consider myself a Christian with Catholic roots, a former Buddhist who realizes Truth is Truth. Buddhist philosophy and Christian philosophy are compatible and can exist in harmony. But boundaries must be kept. If you're Christian, be a Christian. If you're a Buddhist, be a Buddhist. Don't delude yourself into thinking you can somehow be both at the same time. If try and chase two dogs, you will lose them both. I now still admire Buddha, whose words are not invalidated. But now I have Jesus Christ as my only Lord and Saviour, whose Gospel is universal and transcend all boundaries.



morning_after
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,041
Location: Arizona

03 Mar 2008, 7:51 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Faith means believing in something while knowing you could be wrong. Faith means to surrender the possibility of knowledge. If it were possible to know & have facts, faith would not be faith. If one has ultimate knowledge of everything, faith would be the one concept forever out of reach.

I was born Catholic, and now attend a fairly liberal Baptist church that de-emphasizes the importance of demoninations. I consider myself a Christian with Catholic roots, a former Buddhist who realizes Truth is Truth. Buddhist philosophy and Christian philosophy are compatible and can exist in harmony. But boundaries must be kept. If you're Christian, be a Christian. If you're a Buddhist, be a Buddhist. Don't delude yourself into thinking you can somehow be both at the same time. If try and chase two dogs, you will lose them both. I now still admire Buddha, whose words are not invalidated. But now I have Jesus Christ as my only Lord and Saviour, whose Gospel is universal and transcend all boundaries.


i'm afraid you sound like you're confusing regular faith with bling faith. Regular faith involves having some of the answers, and trusting in God to bring you the rest of the way. Blind faith does not.

The bible calls for it's followers to have faith, but it does not ever have to be a blind one. I think the less blind it is, the better.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

03 Mar 2008, 8:44 pm

Bekkles wrote:
"AS doesn't have a physical grounding - God made me this way!"

I have not seen this attitude in the Asperger's community before.



Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

03 Mar 2008, 9:43 pm

Faith is merely the position that "I believe X, regardless of any arguments or evidence that anyone might present to me." If one is willing to be swayed by argument and evidence, then one lacks faith.

Of course, I think that such a thing is absurd and extremely dangerous. Even if your particular matters of faith appear to be benign, you are still effectively signing away your intellectual honesty in favour of an ideology.

Am I being rude? Yes. That doesn't mean that I am wrong.


_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas


morning_after
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,041
Location: Arizona

03 Mar 2008, 10:11 pm

Doc_Daneeka wrote:
Faith is merely the position that "I believe X, regardless of any arguments or evidence that anyone might present to me." If one is willing to be swayed by argument and evidence, then one lacks faith.

Of course, I think that such a thing is absurd and extremely dangerous. Even if your particular matters of faith appear to be benign, you are still effectively signing away your intellectual honesty in favour of an ideology.

Am I being rude? Yes. That doesn't mean that I am wrong.


Or they can just consider the argument. A person does not have to be closed minded to have faith.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

03 Mar 2008, 10:38 pm

Doc_Daneeka wrote:
sartresue wrote:
That ol' time religion topic

I take an eclectic view of religions/faith. I have studied many in order to extract the good from each and incorporate these ideas into my own weltanshaung (world view). From each person/religion I can learn something about how to be better. In this sense I am a humanist.

Since I have no ideas if there is a god out there or not(and I have found no convincing arguments from either side of this debate) this classifies me as an agnostic. I was much more involved in the politics of religion and worship twenty years ago.

What prompted the original poster to ask the question/subject of this forum?


Do you actually believe that there is a god? I'm not talking about evidence, but rather belief. If you don't actively believe in one, you are by definition an atheist, regardless of your epistemological position on the god question.

It drives me nuts when people imply that that because there's no positive evidence for or against a god, that means that one should be neutral. Bertrand Russell illustrated this so very well with his celestial teacup argument. Does it really matter that there's a chance that this teacup might exist? No. What matters is that it's absurd to believe in a thing when there's no evidence for it. From what you've said, you don't actively believe. You also don't claim to have any way of knowing for sure. That would make you an agnostic atheist.

Sorry for harping on this issue, but it's an important one. (A)theist and (a)gnostic are not mutually exclusive positions. They are orthogonal to each other.


To ag or agnost topic

Point taken. By god, the definition rests. I am an agnostic atheist. I am surprised. I hope I am wrong, and can have a good long talk with the Almighty once I have dearly departed.
Orthogonal is a new word. I just looked it up. I see these two words are orthogonal, but not synonymous.

You have a very rational and logical way of arguing. Are these words orthogonal?

I was born at Toronto, and I call my city Toronto.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,608
Location: Somerset UK

04 Mar 2008, 7:04 am

sartresue wrote:
...... orthogonal, but not synonymous.

It is utterly impossible for synonyms to be orthogonal.

sartresue wrote:
You have a very rational and logical way of arguing. Are these words orthogonal?

It is utterly impossible for near-synonyms to be orthogonal.

sartresue wrote:
I was born at Toronto, and I call my city Toronto.

Curious... is this particular use of the preposition "at" supposed to have some obscure meaning? A word, in isolation, is trivially synonymous with itself. If, in your sentence, the word "Toronto" had an alternative meaning - say "tea-time", then the use of "at", along with "Toronto" could be seen to form the phrasal meaning "at about 4pm in the afternoon". The juxtaposition of "city" with the (ungrammatically unquoted) word "Toronto" would tie that use of the word to the geographical location. Under these circumstances, the two meanings evoked from the word "Toronto" would be orthogonal.

========

Anyway, the misinterpretation of the terms (a)gnostic and (a)theistic is pretty standard stuff. As both attitudes require "belief", I prefer not to label myself with any of the various combination terms.

The whole discussion of god(s) seems fluff to me. I find it odd that the concept of a god or gods is still current. At least phlogiston rates "Now hist." in the OED. Roll on the day when the whole litany of words "god", "religion", "ecumenical", and so on, gets likewise described.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Mar 2008, 7:12 am

JerryHatake wrote:
Nope.

I believe in God but see no point in doing the religious stuff because it will inferred with my academics that come first.


Are you joking?



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

04 Mar 2008, 9:06 am

lau wrote:
sartresue wrote:
...... orthogonal, but not synonymous.

It is utterly impossible for synonyms to be orthogonal.

sartresue wrote:
You have a very rational and logical way of arguing. Are these words orthogonal?

It is utterly impossible for near-synonyms to be orthogonal.

sartresue wrote:
I was born at Toronto, and I call my city Toronto.

Curious... is this particular use of the preposition "at" supposed to have some obscure meaning? A word, in isolation, is trivially synonymous with itself. If, in your sentence, the word "Toronto" had an alternative meaning - say "tea-time", then the use of "at", along with "Toronto" could be seen to form the phrasal meaning "at about 4pm in the afternoon". The juxtaposition of "city" with the (ungrammatically unquoted) word "Toronto" would tie that use of the word to the geographical location. Under these circumstances, the two meanings evoked from the word "Toronto" would be orthogonal.
Anyway, the misinterpretation of the terms (a)gnostic and (a)theistic is pretty standard stuff. As both attitudes require "belief", I prefer not to label myself with any of the various combination terms.

The whole discussion of god(s) seems fluff to me. I find it odd that the concept of a god or gods is still current. At least phlogiston rates "Now hist." in the OED. Roll on the day when the whole litany of words "god", "religion", "ecumenical", and so on, gets likewise described.

Dear Lau

Point taken for orthogonal and synonymous usage. I could not find any connection with those words, so I stated the words were not synonymous.

I used the preposition "at" but it is no longer customary to use this. It is now approriate to use "in".

In his signature Doc_Daneeka pronounced the word Toronto "Tarana." I am from Toronto, and I have never used that alternative pronunciation.

As for faith in gods, bunnies, hell, devils, and teacups, I can believe/have faith in what I want. Bertrand Russell believed in himself.

Thanks for your post, Lau. Always intelligent and informative.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

04 Mar 2008, 6:53 pm

sartresue wrote:
Doc_Daneeka wrote:
sartresue wrote:
That ol' time religion topic

I take an eclectic view of religions/faith. I have studied many in order to extract the good from each and incorporate these ideas into my own weltanshaung (world view). From each person/religion I can learn something about how to be better. In this sense I am a humanist.

Since I have no ideas if there is a god out there or not(and I have found no convincing arguments from either side of this debate) this classifies me as an agnostic. I was much more involved in the politics of religion and worship twenty years ago.

What prompted the original poster to ask the question/subject of this forum?


Do you actually believe that there is a god? I'm not talking about evidence, but rather belief. If you don't actively believe in one, you are by definition an atheist, regardless of your epistemological position on the god question.

It drives me nuts when people imply that that because there's no positive evidence for or against a god, that means that one should be neutral. Bertrand Russell illustrated this so very well with his celestial teacup argument. Does it really matter that there's a chance that this teacup might exist? No. What matters is that it's absurd to believe in a thing when there's no evidence for it. From what you've said, you don't actively believe. You also don't claim to have any way of knowing for sure. That would make you an agnostic atheist.

Sorry for harping on this issue, but it's an important one. (A)theist and (a)gnostic are not mutually exclusive positions. They are orthogonal to each other.


To ag or agnost topic

Point taken. By god, the definition rests. I am an agnostic atheist. I am surprised. I hope I am wrong, and can have a good long talk with the Almighty once I have dearly departed.
Orthogonal is a new word. I just looked it up. I see these two words are orthogonal, but not synonymous.

You have a very rational and logical way of arguing. Are these words orthogonal?

I was born at Toronto, and I call my city Toronto.


I'd address the 'orthogonal' question, but lau was kind enough to do that already. As for Toronto, it's true that many don't pronounce it as Tarana or Chronno. I found an audio clip that demonstrates the most common pronounciation, in my experience. The second T disappears, and the initial T is often pronounced similar to 'ch'. Sure you'd admit that this clip is indeed representative of the way Torontonians actually speak?


_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,608
Location: Somerset UK

04 Mar 2008, 8:39 pm

Doc_Daneeka wrote:
... As for Toronto, it's true that many don't pronounce it as Tarana or Chronno. I found an audio clip that demonstrates the most common pronounciation, in my experience. The second T disappears, and the initial T is often pronounced similar to 'ch'. Sure you'd admit that this clip is indeed representative of the way Torontonians actually speak?

Heheh! I couldn't resist this....

I didn't realise Toronto was in California.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

04 Mar 2008, 9:40 pm

Accent on Toronto topic

Thank you for the link. I hope my CAPD did not get in the way. I heard the voice tell me "Toronto, Toronto, I'm going to Toronto." I did not hear Chorono, or tarana, I am fairly certain I heard Torono, as you stated in your post. fascinating. I was never aware of this before.

I have read at some point there used to be a Toronto accented English. Could the "Torono" pronunciation be part of this accent?

Are you a linguist, or do you have an interest in this field related to your educational discipline?

Thank you for your post.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

04 Mar 2008, 10:17 pm

lau wrote:
Doc_Daneeka wrote:
... As for Toronto, it's true that many don't pronounce it as Tarana or Chronno. I found an audio clip that demonstrates the most common pronounciation, in my experience. The second T disappears, and the initial T is often pronounced similar to 'ch'. Sure you'd admit that this clip is indeed representative of the way Torontonians actually speak?

Heheh! I couldn't resist this....

I didn't realise Toronto was in California.


There's an Ontario in California, so why not? Hehe.


_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas


Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

04 Mar 2008, 10:29 pm

sartresue wrote:
Accent on Toronto topic

Thank you for the link. I hope my CAPD did not get in the way. I heard the voice tell me "Toronto, Toronto, I'm going to Toronto." I did not hear Chorono, or tarana, I am fairly certain I heard Torono, as you stated in your post. fascinating. I was never aware of this before.

I have read at some point there used to be a Toronto accented English. Could the "Torono" pronunciation be part of this accent?

Are you a linguist, or do you have an interest in this field related to your educational discipline?

Thank you for your post.


I can't help but feel that your responses to my posts are meant as sarcasm. I could be wrong.

At any rate, accents are a particular interest of mine, though not relating in any way to my education. I do pay a lot of attention to the accent of any person that I should happen to hear. I should note that the clip I linked to comes from a linguist at York university. The page is at http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/ling/papers.html


_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas


blind-reaper
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6

07 Mar 2008, 10:09 pm

I'm not religious, I believe in God but I'm not oriented to any religion.