|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
|
What's the most compelling argument for theism that's prevented you from becoming an atheist? |
Okay, that's an honest question. I wouldn't call it an 'argument that prevented me from becoming an atheist' but remember Dawkins' "we're just like you except that we worship one less god"? Militant atheism/anti-theism seems to me to be like theism (at it's best now, mind you - I'm thinking C.S. Lewis, Tolkien here) minus one branch of knowledge. Only a few atheists (and these are the ones that I respect the most) have been able to get beyond a really simplistic interpretation of religion. A biblical studies prof at the university where I'm from for example is apparently a really strong atheist. That's definitely the minority though. Never really looked at atheism and thought man, I really want what they have. |
Would you accept that it may be the sheer volume of sophistry on the subject of the Bible (and other bibles) that gives it its authority? The Scholastics proved that you could produce scads of doctrinal debate and still achieve absolutely no advancement of knowledge whatsoever. Papal authority also guaranteed that for years no other philosophical investigation could be propagated - writing on the subject of the glory of God being preferable to burning at the stake. Are you citing material produced under such conditions to be part of your rich heritage? Shouldn't such dogmatic persiflage be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs instead of venerating it as a branch of 'knowledge' somehow elevated above others by its false authority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The link provided by "mercurix" earlier discussed the limitations and philosophical shortcomings of positivism - even the modern positivism of of scientists like Stephen Hawking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Re controlling the mind - that's what the progressive yoga system is for.
Basically, the mind's business is to accept and reject things.
Materially conditioned souls tend to accept and reject things on the basis of individual - or socially extended - sense gratification.
On the mental platform there can be no conclusive knowledge - just ongoing speculation grounded in the illusion that we are nothing more than our physical bodies.
Different forms of yoga are helpful in bringing the senses and mind under control, and ultimately - at the stage of bhakti yoga - one realizes that the spiritual self is distinct from the gross (physical) and subtle (mental) bodily coverings.
"Mantra" literally means "delivers the mind" and mantra meditation on transcendental sound vibrations surpassing the sensual, mental, and intellectual platforms of knowledge can gradually purifiy material conditioning that's accumulated over numerous lifetimes.
A person on the path of liberation - under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master - accepts and rejects things based on what is favorable for spiritual perfection.
Here's one definition of who's qualified to act as a spiritual master (from an article written by me...)
A sober person who controls the urges of the body/demands of the mind, preaches, has strong faith and logically understands the scriptures can initiate disciples.
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-08/editorials2499.htm
Last edited by Rteacher on Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
|
What's the most compelling argument for theism that's prevented you from becoming an atheist? |
Okay, that's an honest question. I wouldn't call it an 'argument that prevented me from becoming an atheist' but remember Dawkins' "we're just like you except that we worship one less god"? Militant atheism/anti-theism seems to me to be like theism (at it's best now, mind you - I'm thinking C.S. Lewis, Tolkien here) minus one branch of knowledge. Only a few atheists (and these are the ones that I respect the most) have been able to get beyond a really simplistic interpretation of religion. A biblical studies prof at the university where I'm from for example is apparently a really strong atheist. That's definitely the minority though. Never really looked at atheism and thought man, I really want what they have. |
Would you accept that it may be the sheer volume of sophistry on the subject of the Bible (and other bibles) that gives it its authority? The Scholastics proved that you could produce scads of doctrinal debate and still achieve absolutely no advancement of knowledge whatsoever. Papal authority also guaranteed that for years no other philosophical investigation could be propagated - writing on the subject of the glory of God being preferable to burning at the stake. Are you citing material produced under such conditions to be part of your rich heritage? Shouldn't such dogmatic persiflage be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs instead of venerating it as a branch of 'knowledge' somehow elevated above others by its false authority? |
Why stop at the Bible? Let's throw out Plato as well, because Socrates always talked about God/gods. Surely there's no value in a book over 20 centuries old that talks about various gods and a line about the sun being made out of stone.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_(Plato)
Perhaps you don't feel threatened by an ancient Greek talking about gods that are no longer worshiped but once we've thrown one book with religious content in the 'dustbin of history' who says that someone won't come along and demand this one go too?
Better would be to let people make up their own minds either way. Let's not have any common wisdom prevail over any one book, good or bad.
Regarding papal authority, that's pretty much what caused the schism in 1054:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| grimalkin wrote: |
At least let him play fair. If Kuros is using an established system of word substitution he should identify which one it is. Do you know? More to the point, if you had been asked to define 'exile' would you have given the meanings 'military occupation by a foreign force', 'desertion' and 'feelings of abandonment'? |
I just saw this. This is preposterous. I did not define exile with those following terms. I merely said there were themes of exile during Jesus' death. You may see me as obfuscating, I see you as playing literalist shell-games where you try to pin criticisms based on your willful and deliberate misunderstandings.
At any rate, I agree with the poster above who claimed that militant atheism is its own kind of faith. And I have no love for any militant creeds, although the reason I bother debating with the anti-theists is that presumably they are supposed to accept reason. And then there are the tactics that Grimalkin has employed here . . . |
I suppose I should just be happy that you do actually read my posts....even if it is after you've already replied to them.
Still I'm going to ask anyway....
In what way does the Roman occupation have the 'theme' of exile unless it is actually a form of exile?
In what way does the disciples' desertion of Jesus have the 'theme' of exile unless it is actually a form of exile?
In what way do the Jesus' feelings of abandonment have the 'theme' of exile unless they actually a form of exile?
And don't think that I haven't noticed that you have done your usual trick of 'Oh that's not what I mean' without actually trying to clarify what you do mean. |
None of it really matters, in particular. The important point is that death is taken to mean more than the death of the particular individual. Exile from one's clan or one's country is a kind of death. Why? Because family and nation are larger entities in which people find their immortality. This is not simply a biblical point nor is it exclusive to Western culture.
The point being, Christianity's radicalism is that it broke from the exclusivity of nation to become universal. That's what I meant about universal. Its not that I'm changing things to trick you, its that I'm talking about things on a completely different level than you. And please note, I only decided to become condescending after you accused me of being a sophist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
|
What's the most compelling argument for theism that's prevented you from becoming an atheist? |
Okay, that's an honest question. I wouldn't call it an 'argument that prevented me from becoming an atheist' but remember Dawkins' "we're just like you except that we worship one less god"? Militant atheism/anti-theism seems to me to be like theism (at it's best now, mind you - I'm thinking C.S. Lewis, Tolkien here) minus one branch of knowledge. Only a few atheists (and these are the ones that I respect the most) have been able to get beyond a really simplistic interpretation of religion. A biblical studies prof at the university where I'm from for example is apparently a really strong atheist. That's definitely the minority though. Never really looked at atheism and thought man, I really want what they have. |
Would you accept that it may be the sheer volume of sophistry on the subject of the Bible (and other bibles) that gives it its authority? The Scholastics proved that you could produce scads of doctrinal debate and still achieve absolutely no advancement of knowledge whatsoever. Papal authority also guaranteed that for years no other philosophical investigation could be propagated - writing on the subject of the glory of God being preferable to burning at the stake. Are you citing material produced under such conditions to be part of your rich heritage? Shouldn't such dogmatic persiflage be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs instead of venerating it as a branch of 'knowledge' somehow elevated above others by its false authority? |
Why stop at the Bible? Let's throw out Plato as well, because Socrates always talked about God/gods. Surely there's no value in a book over 20 centuries old that talks about various gods and a line about the sun being made out of stone.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_(Plato)
Perhaps you don't feel threatened by an ancient Greek talking about gods that are no longer worshiped but once we've thrown one book with religious content in the 'dustbin of history' who says that someone won't come along and demand this one go too?
Better would be to let people make up their own minds either way. Let's not have any common wisdom prevail over any one book, good or bad.
Regarding papal authority, that's pretty much what caused the schism in 1054:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism |
We can read Plato without feeling any need to believe in the Greek gods. Similarly, we could read the Bible and not feel any need to take it as anything but allegory. It is when that allegorical content / blatant bullshit is taken as a grounds for authority that it becomes a problem. Anyway, for me, Plato's theistic idealism was his failing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
RTeacher Wrote
| Quote: |
| The link provided by "mercurix" earlier discussed the limitations and philosophical shortcomings of positivism - even the modern positivism of of scientists like Stephen Hawking. |
Yes, there are important criticisms of positivism. The criterion, for example, that all things must be either verified directly by empirical evidence, or by a strict chain of logic leading to empirical veracity, fails its own standard. But then, this is "carping." 
However, that such a criterion fails does not mean that a speculative proposition is on a par with a proposition which has been verified empirically. The issue of the criterion mentioned above is a technical issue about what we may call knowledge--you know, the kind of stuff you'd want the medicine founded on which the doctor is using to save your baby's life. Chanting mantra or prayer just won't cut it here.
| Quote: |
| Re controlling the mind - that's what the progressive yoga system is for. |
You could not be more right; but even yoga is too caught up in superstition and speculative nonsense. I am a yoga siromani. I sit in meditation. I use mantra. But I cut the superstition away from what is clearly knowledge: the practical systems of Raja Yoga.
| Quote: |
| Basically, the mind's business is to accept and reject things. |
In my practice of jnana yoga, I practice chanting "Neti, neti" (not this, not that) in a western empirical mode. Some would call it "carping." I would call it, as the word jnana means, the way to knowledge.
You would say you are not material. I also am not material. Also, I am not spirit, not consciousness. Neti, neti. How can we ever experience directly, be true empiricists, if we look at everything through ideas? Ideas reveal; ideas conceal.
| Quote: |
| Materially conditioned souls tend to accept and reject things on the basis of individual - or socially extended - sense gratification. |
This is no reason to reject the senses. Yes, they are insufficient. But, they are organs by which, properly employed, we may gain knowledge. Knowledge begins with the senses, but does arise out of them.
| Quote: |
| On the mental platform there can be no conclusive knowledge - just ongoing speculation grounded in the illusion that we are nothing more than our physical bodies. |
The use of the word "more" expresses a great deal of your motivation for embracing vedanta as you have. But, what is more, what less, than a snowflake, a flower, or a piece of shit? Properly seen: not more, not less: neti, neti.
| Quote: |
| Different forms of yoga are helpful in bringing the senses and mind under control, and ultimately - at the stage of bhakti yoga - one realizes that the spiritual self is distinct from the gross (physical) and subtle (mental) bodily coverings. |
You speak as if bhakti is the highest form of yoga. Again, this ties in with your choice of the word "more." Yoga, practiced authentically, would help to extinguish the flame of desire which leads to such blinding judgements.
| Quote: |
| "Mantra" literally means "delivers the mind" and mantra meditation on transcendental sound vibrations surpassing the sensual, mental, and intellectual platforms of knowledge can gradually purify material conditioning that's accumulated over numerous lifetimes. |
Mantra is simply a way to focus the mind. Mantra is not more, not less, than chanting "coca-cola." But, we creatures of desire and self-importance would give mantra to mean more, wouldn't we?
| Quote: |
| A person on the path of liberation - under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master - accepts and rejects things based on what is favorable for spiritual perfection. |
Some of us see our guru in all things, all people. With reason and discipline (connected with the word disciple), we bow to teacher. Need I mention that Ignorance is also a teacher?
| Quote: |
Here's one definition of who's qualified to act as a spiritual master (from an article written by me...)
A sober person who controls the urges of the body/demands of the mind, preaches, has strong faith and logically understands the scriptures can initiate disciples. |
When we see scripture--or any literature, book or poem--as an end in itself, we have fallen off the path, into idolatry. Then, we should burn our books, though we'd deny no other man, woman or child access to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
Again, why not? Nothing wrong with being an atheist.
|
What's the most compelling argument for theism that's prevented you from becoming an atheist? |
Okay, that's an honest question. I wouldn't call it an 'argument that prevented me from becoming an atheist' but remember Dawkins' "we're just like you except that we worship one less god"? Militant atheism/anti-theism seems to me to be like theism (at it's best now, mind you - I'm thinking C.S. Lewis, Tolkien here) minus one branch of knowledge. Only a few atheists (and these are the ones that I respect the most) have been able to get beyond a really simplistic interpretation of religion. A biblical studies prof at the university where I'm from for example is apparently a really strong atheist. That's definitely the minority though. Never really looked at atheism and thought man, I really want what they have. |
Would you accept that it may be the sheer volume of sophistry on the subject of the Bible (and other bibles) that gives it its authority? The Scholastics proved that you could produce scads of doctrinal debate and still achieve absolutely no advancement of knowledge whatsoever. Papal authority also guaranteed that for years no other philosophical investigation could be propagated - writing on the subject of the glory of God being preferable to burning at the stake. Are you citing material produced under such conditions to be part of your rich heritage? Shouldn't such dogmatic persiflage be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs instead of venerating it as a branch of 'knowledge' somehow elevated above others by its false authority? |
Why stop at the Bible? Let's throw out Plato as well, because Socrates always talked about God/gods. Surely there's no value in a book over 20 centuries old that talks about various gods and a line about the sun being made out of stone.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Apology_(Plato)
Perhaps you don't feel threatened by an ancient Greek talking about gods that are no longer worshiped but once we've thrown one book with religious content in the 'dustbin of history' who says that someone won't come along and demand this one go too?
Better would be to let people make up their own minds either way. Let's not have any common wisdom prevail over any one book, good or bad.
Regarding papal authority, that's pretty much what caused the schism in 1054:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism |
We can read Plato without feeling any need to believe in the Greek gods. Similarly, we could read the Bible and not feel any need to take it as anything but allegory. |
Yes! My point exactly. This is exactly what I've been saying all this time.
I agree that the bible should have no authority over those that don't believe in it, so we're on the same page there too. Religion is cheapened IMO by trying to pretend that it can somehow filter into a person through societal effect before the person has had a chance to think about what they themselves believe. That's where I agree with Dawkins and Orthodox Christianity too (there are no Christian/Buddhist/Atheist/Communist/Dentist etc. children; they still haven't given those matters any thought). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Someone said on another thread that all beliefs are dangerous. I don't know about that.
All I can think of is that many beliefs are making groups of people.
Should we belong to groups? Are we groups in this world, in this life? Are we really separate from one another? By language, perhaps.
A reason for separateness is different beliefs. It is obvious. Yet how unwilling are we, how attached, regarding those we have been given? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jajdude wrote: |
Someone said on another thread that all beliefs are dangerous. I don't know about that.
All I can think of is that many beliefs are making groups of people.
Should we belong to groups? Are we groups in this world, in this life? Are we really separate from one another? By language, perhaps.
A reason for separateness is different beliefs. It is obvious. Yet how unwilling are we, how attached, regarding those we have been given? |
THat was probably me. A belief means to base something concrete (like the way you live your life for example, or even betting on a low possiblity) based on something that has no concrete subtance (the definition of a belief). If a belief had proof, or something concrete, it would no longer be a belief by definition.
Therefore, a belief is dangerous, even if it does good. Basing something off of nothing will always be wrong, no matter what outcome it has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| jajdude wrote: |
Someone said on another thread that all beliefs are dangerous. I don't know about that.
All I can think of is that many beliefs are making groups of people.
Should we belong to groups? Are we groups in this world, in this life? Are we really separate from one another? By language, perhaps.
A reason for separateness is different beliefs. It is obvious. Yet how unwilling are we, how attached, regarding those we have been given? |
THat was probably me. A belief means to base something concrete (like the way you live your life for example, or even betting on a low possiblity) based on something that has no concrete subtance (the definition of a belief). If a belief had proof, or something concrete, it would no longer be a belief by definition.
Therefore, a belief is dangerous, even if it does good. Basing something off of nothing will always be wrong, no matter what outcome it has. |
I think you mean faith, not belief. Beliefs may be based on evidence. Faith is belief in the face of no evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| jajdude wrote: |
Someone said on another thread that all beliefs are dangerous. I don't know about that.
All I can think of is that many beliefs are making groups of people.
Should we belong to groups? Are we groups in this world, in this life? Are we really separate from one another? By language, perhaps.
A reason for separateness is different beliefs. It is obvious. Yet how unwilling are we, how attached, regarding those we have been given? |
THat was probably me. A belief means to base something concrete (like the way you live your life for example, or even betting on a low possiblity) based on something that has no concrete subtance (the definition of a belief). If a belief had proof, or something concrete, it would no longer be a belief by definition.
Therefore, a belief is dangerous, even if it does good. Basing something off of nothing will always be wrong, no matter what outcome it has. |
I think you mean faith, not belief. Beliefs may be based on evidence. Faith is belief in the face of no evidence. |
You might be right  replace wherever I said belief with faith. It does not change my answer though, as the person I was responding too was also probably talking about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One of the dangers I can see in beliefs is their power to exclude when they are used to form groups. The group may be very large, such as an organized religion, yet because its members adhere to and follow a belief or set of beliefs, they separate themselves from others who do not. I'm not sure how religion should be defined, or if it should, but I don't think it should be a tool for forming exclusive groups. How does a man come to an understanding of himself through following beliefs that were given to him? I just cannot understand the urge to follow and belong. Many people are just pressured to do this, and to do otherwise would lead to some sort of punishment. Whatever religion or freedom is, I doubt it's following and belonging to groups based on beliefs. This is where I see a danger in beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Live dangerously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing that continues to baffle me, and has for many years, is how many people seem to never (or rarely) question their beliefs. It's amazing to me. How can one go through life accepting things so easily? All these things we think: they are not our own, we did not invent them. They were given to us or forced upon us by others, who themselves, in their turn, were followers as well.
Incredible, really. Yet most of the world is like this.
Independent thought? A rare thing, I suppose, if it exists at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red_devil
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a handful of my favorite quotes:
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. - Unknown
Faith means not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination. - Edward Abbey
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. - Frater Ravus
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power but absolute power is corrupt only in the hands of the absolutely faithful. - Anonymous |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
