Thirith on 19/12/2007 at 08:40
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You're just plain wrong all over that post though Thirith.
Love is not "just" hormones and physical urges. It is a functionally important part of human existence and like it or not we are all prone to falling in love. Being able to determine some of it's biological components and even developing a rationale for it's development doesn't diminish it's important in any way.
Well, for one thing you seem to be presuming that the cultural concept of love is static. It isn't. As far as I know from cultural history, the notion of "love" is in constant flux. So saying stuff like "we are all prone to falling in love" doesn't actually say anything much.
If I understand your post correctly, you infuse love with metaphysical meaning. So do I. But there is no material basis for that metaphysical meaning. And one of the main arguments against the "God delusion", namely that God is a fiction, a construct, presumes that constructs without material basis are by definition worthless and pointless.
Quote:
What is it with people and dismissing things once they have been explained? Is a chameleon any less awesome because you know how it changes colour? Pffft.
Read my post properly. I said that if anyone wants to take the material view of things to its logical conclusion, they have to dismiss a hell of a lot of things more than just God. I'm not dissing people who infuse the world with metaphysical meaning (and yes, that includes value judgments such as "awesome"), because I do so myself.
Quote:
If you want to start down that path then everything is delusion - it's all just a neurobiological construct that comes into "existence" at the mind-world interface that "we" "call" "senses".
So wrong. These "cultural delusions" are what we use to order the world on a large scale. This has no bearing on the existence of a divine force or not. If it could be proven that God does not exist then the "God delusion" (as it would truly be then) would be a waste of time and energy.
Yes, we order the world according to "cultural delusions". (Again, if you'd read my post properly, you would have seen the "If..." clauses.) Yes, that has no bearing on the existence of God, which isn't what I claimed. What I said was that religion, like anything founded in what is quite possibly a construct, can have functions and meaning whether God exists or not. In that respect, if God doesn't exist then we create Him. And one could argue that this God isn't any more or less real than any number of cultural constructs. If you come down on the "not real" side, then a lot of babies should be thrown out with that bathwater... but usually they're not, which strikes me as a tad hypocritical.
However, this is also totally divorced from the question whether religion as a construct is positive or negative. My point is simply this:
Quote:
I must say that this gets up my nose, because it presumes that non-religious people do not live their lives according to fictions.
Raven on 19/12/2007 at 08:47
catbarf , what I was mostly saying is the fett supposed take on the Christian view is plain wrong. Children are not/should not be taught something is wrong because it is a sin - they are taught WHY it is a sin. FFS - again this is the automatic assumption that anyone in a religion is thick. Okay if people are raising children to believe that something is wrong "only" because it is a sin, then yes though people ARE thick and THEY don't know there own religion. This is not the fault of the religion, it is the fault of really poor religious eduction. I would have thought that the idea of a sin against god was a sin against love and so was inherently and tangibly wrong as OBVIOUS - but I am constantly amazed at how wrong (and yes, just plain wrong) some peoples take on these matters are!
As for deludding myself... as already pointed out, people delude themselves all the time - you think that in the grand scheme of a godless universe your life and the life of anyone around means anything at ALL? Humans have to delude ourselves (and I am not saying that it is inherently wrong that we do) or else we would go mad!
Yep, "fundies" in the contemporary meaning of the word, are nutters that need help and re-education from a loving and patient community.
If someone comes round to help then yes, the thanks should go to the person helping. If someone shoots the family apart then it is only human to blame the other human - but their religion should give them a fall back position of trying to recognise that the murderer was only human (there their own personal fuck ups), and the victims (those still living) should be trying to forgive the culprit ,and they should be asking God for help in that task. Ofcourse God is found in a neighbour helping out a neighbour, through my analogy of God being like unselfish human love that is obviously the case, but a true Christian should also be seeking God in the tragedies of life too, and that is where it is very difficult (and there is scope to get it badly wrong to = manifest destiny/crusades/and religious war you care to mention)
Catbarf - if you really go through life not taking time to ponder the big questions then I happy that you have found somewhere comfortable for yourself, I wonder if you are in the same position as those though never bother to questions the beliefs that they have been raised with? Or those with a simple belief and trust (in anything) that just get on and try to live a good life. That is kinda cool, I know that such people exist and they seem happy. I guess I just spend to much time asking why.
Finally, what I am saying is the world needs people looking out for each other, and loving their neighbour as themselves. "Who is your neighbour?" I hear you ask - well it is easy to help someone you love, but what the world really needs is for people to love their enemies. - note I am paraphrasing here.
[[[Please note that I am addressing all points here from a Roman Catholic perspective, or at least trying to - I am not sure how I could do this from a position of other Christian faiths that have compromised themselves by picking and choosing the various elements of the faith, making stuff up and not conforming to the community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yes I do mean the big ghost in the sky, but that is a fundamental point of my belief - if the teachings and doctrines of the Church on earth weren't being guided by God (believed to be) then I couldn't really talk about these matters with any authority (even my imaginary authority) at all.]]]
Matthew on 19/12/2007 at 09:57
Wow, that last paragraph wasn't inflammatory at all.
Thirith on 19/12/2007 at 10:21
Quote Posted by Raven
[[[Please note that I am addressing all points here from a Roman Catholic perspective, or at least trying to - I am not sure how I could do this from a position of other Christian faiths that have compromised themselves by picking and choosing the various elements of the faith, making stuff up and not conforming to the community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yes I do mean the big ghost in the sky, but that is a fundamental point of my belief - if the teachings and doctrines of the Church on earth weren't being guided by God (believed to be) then I couldn't really talk about these matters with any authority (even my imaginary authority) at all.]]]
And you honestly believe that the Roman Catholic church has done any less picking and choosing or making up? What a delightfully ahistorical perspective... :weird:
Raven on 19/12/2007 at 11:15
Meh... what do I know, I choose to belief in a big unicorn in the sky. It is a bit of bugbear of mine, I understand where other Christian demoinations are coming from and their grievences with the Church (Roman Catholic and those in communion with Romw) - but if there wasn't certainity and guideance over what Christ's exact message was, then why bother with the whole thing in the first place (and I don't buy the whole Bible is the be all and end all of the whole thing - Jesus didn't write it!)
Anyway, I will admit that I jumped into this thread to address some points that I felt fett was way off on, and I havn't even paid much attension to the whole context of the thread at large - so at this point I will bow out and let that dicussion continue. Sorry carry on - ignore the bigot in the corner and leave him to his Hail Marys
"Well, for one thing you seem to be presuming that the cultural concept of love is static. It isn't. As far as I know from cultural history, the notion of "love" is in constant flux. So saying stuff like "we are all prone to falling in love" doesn't actually say anything much."
Yeah, and it is not like our understanding of the concept of God has ever evloved has it? - sorry couldn't help myself , shutting up now.
SD on 19/12/2007 at 11:20
Quote Posted by Stitch
Another religious thread, another chance for SD to embarrass himself by quoting Dawkin's clueless talking points.
Are you going to qualify that? This guy invented the concept of the meme; there's nothing clueless about his talking points. And when you have a cultural meme like religion, that is at best a waste of time and energy, and at worst, inspires people to murder their own family members, I don't think it's unjustified to group it under the banner of mental illness. I'm a little mystified as to why I should be embarrassed for doing just that.
Vasquez on 19/12/2007 at 11:55
Quote Posted by Raven
(and I don't buy the whole Bible is the be all and end all of the whole thing - Jesus didn't write it!)
Why o why wasn't there blogs back then? :(
Thirith on 19/12/2007 at 12:17
Quote Posted by Raven
... It is a bit of bugbear of mine, I understand where other Christian demoinations are coming from and their grievences with the Church (Roman Catholic and those in communion with Romw) - but if there wasn't certainity and guideance over what Christ's exact message was, then why bother with the whole thing in the first place ...
Well, I think that Christ's message is fairly clear when it comes to a handful of fundamentals ("Love one another"), but I also believe that it's our responsibility, every step of the way, to interpret the message. It's part of the whole "free will" thing - we have to become actively involved in the act of interpretation. Creation/existence is such a wonderfully rich and complex thing, human expression will always fail to encompass it fully. As far as I'm concerned, any human being believing that they know God's mind with 100% precision is arrogant, sinfully so, and could do with a big helping of humility.
Quote:
"Well, for one thing you seem to be presuming that the cultural concept of love is static. It isn't. As far as I know from cultural history, the notion of "love" is in constant flux. So saying stuff like "we are all prone to falling in love" doesn't actually say anything much."
Yeah, and it is not like our understanding of the concept of God has ever evloved has it? - sorry couldn't help myself , shutting up now.
Oh, for fuck's sake - read what it says up there. I never said that the concept of God has been static. In fact, I've pretty much said the opposite. But what you say here seems to go against your want for "certainty... over what Christ's message was". If the concept of God evolves, doesn't that mean it changes, and hence earlier certainty was mistaken?
Raven on 19/12/2007 at 13:12
Sorry for misconstruing what you were saying. I was just wanting to point out that our concept of God has changed in time too. And no it is not inconsistent, that is why the Old Testament stories are in the bible, but it goes beyond that into very early beliefs and pagan beliefs along with the beginnings of spirituality. The idea of a changing or evolving concept is vital to the Revelation that the bible is suppose to be describing. Anyway, off topic I am guessing. (the post was to apologise)
fett on 19/12/2007 at 13:20
Quote Posted by SD
Are you going to qualify that? This guy invented the concept of the meme; there's nothing clueless about his talking points. And when you have a cultural meme like religion, that is at best a waste of time and energy, and at worst, inspires people to murder their own family members, I don't think it's unjustified to group it under the banner of mental illness. I'm a little mystified as to why I should be embarrassed for doing just that.
I wouldn't underestimate the importance of what Dawkins is doing because his talking points are at least inspiring dialogue long overdue for our generation. I just think most of his arguments are rather basic and moot. And I'm still with you on the mental illness thing despite insistence from religious folk that they're perfectly stable. Maybe it shouldn't be labeled as mental illness, merely self-delusional and socially dangerous.
