Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the spectrum of belief

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    well the model father child is present in buddhism , hinduism, greek religions and even christianiti

    buddhism theravada: Brhama appears and creates the world according to his thought but in fact he is himself a creation of the universe
    buddhism mahaiana: the adi buddha is a cause in the interdependant causational process

    hinduism: siva is the consciousness while his wife, shakti, is matter, illusion, maia

    greek: the demiurgos is a supreme architect that puts order in Kaos, nature

    christian: god is the father, jesus is the son of man

    dont know about islam or judaism

    Comment


    • #17
      Islam and Judaism, like Christianity, have a "god",. God is mentioned in the Quran as "god" as I remember, and in Judaism, he's (or she) is called Yahweh. There are similarities between the Jewish Torah and the Islamic Quran in how they present god, in what god says, how he says it, and the meanings behind his words as they had been percieved, almost to the point where some scholars believe that the two religions might actually be referring to the same individual (ie, there is a lot of similarities in what the god character "says"). The Torah was written from 1200 to 100 BC; the Quran after 500 something AD. One might suspect that one could have been derived somewhat from the other. The New Testament, for Christians, derives somewhat from the Jewish Torah and Old Testament; it too has similarities with the Quran as to "what god says", with some differences. (The Quram sometims is more harsh in its approach).

      Same god? Who knows. Some people think it doesn't matter; they are probably all stories anyway.
      Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

      "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

      (more comments in my User Profile)
      russbo.com


      Comment


      • #18
        there is alot of depth and scope to the stories of these religions, espcially in the bible and the torah.

        more then is typically known and talked about, i mean, if u know your history even a little u know that most of the old testament stories can be traced to sumaria and mesopotamia. alot of people have heard of the epic of gilgamesh etc

        but theres more to these books and stories etc then just them being stories from wherever passed down to whoever.

        there is alot to be discovered through research of the torah and the bible, namely about the bloodlines which is obviously very important to christians or jews or muslims. but such things require alot of effort and information is scarce at best concerning some matters...
        "did you ask me to consider dick with you??" blooming tianshi lotus

        Comment


        • #19
          the particular avatar really isn't important as long as the word/icon represents a supreme being that is marked with superhuman qualities and is capable of performing tasks.

          if it's not a personal god or entity that you pray to for advices, help, etc., who's worshiped and/or somehow communicated with, then the notion seems more philosophical in this respect rather than representative of a specific god or deity, and therefore probably doesn't fit the definition of 'theist' dawkins is referring to.
          Last edited by onesp1ng; 11-04-2008, 03:25 AM.
          ZhongwenMovies.com

          Comment


          • #20
            The question is loaded, but I would pick the first option

            That said; the last option is irrational.
            Last edited by dogchow108; 04-01-2009, 06:53 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              how is the first option less irrational than the last?
              ZhongwenMovies.com

              Comment


              • #22
                when you experience something; there is little doubt any more. it is the one way of really knowing something.

                A lack of experience is simply what comes before. You can't really say you KNOW it's not there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Dog, u say when u percieve something u kind of know it.

                  In psychosis, which is quite current in people interested in religion, there are many kind of hallucinatories perceptions. The libido is so strong, and often turned towards the selfs, that it denies reality to create its own dream world.

                  Peace and love

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That is not what I said.

                    However, I would be interested to see you apply this theory to your keyboard.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      when you experience something; there is little doubt any more. it is the one way of really knowing something.

                      A lack of experience is simply what comes before. You can't really say you KNOW it's not there.
                      both perspectives are based on individual knowledge, personal experiences, etc., not absolute certainty. regardless of the side taken, there's no proof; only assertions are made.

                      if we really inquiry into either position deep enough, logical falacies will likely be evident. they're both faith based, and there's no way of determining whether the truth values are actually valid or not.

                      i seems you're begging the question. thoughts and actions that are based on experiences can be just as irrational, if not more so, than those that are based on the absence of an experience. moreover, there are a lot of other ways to 'know' something, or, contrastly, 'know' it doesn't exist, isn't present, etc...
                      ZhongwenMovies.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by onesp1ng View Post
                        both perspectives are based on individual knowledge, personal experiences, etc., not absolute certainty. regardless of the side taken, there's no proof; only assertions are made.

                        if we really inquiry into either position deep enough, logical falacies will likely be evident. they're both faith based, and there's no way of determining whether the truth values are actually valid or not.

                        i seems you're begging the question. thoughts and actions that are based on experiences can be just as irrational, if not more so, than those that are based on the absence of an experience. moreover, there are a lot of other ways to 'know' something, or, contrastly, 'know' it doesn't exist, isn't present, etc...

                        Dont take it personal, but all I am reading here is "Well, I'd understand but I still havent made the distinction between information and knowledge"

                        Its one of those things that one day you'll understand.

                        Not sure how to explain it, really.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          well, instead of saying, 'i know. you don't know, etc.' why not point me to some reading materials or try to express the difference yourself?

                          you're free to tell me what you think; it's not personal at all. anyhow, i respect your opinion, and i'm open to changing mine.

                          at this moment, it's a bit like you're resorting to ad hominem instead of focusing on the logic itself, as well as asserting another opinion as fact.
                          Last edited by onesp1ng; 04-04-2009, 07:09 AM.
                          ZhongwenMovies.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by onesp1ng View Post
                            well, instead of saying, 'i know. you don't know, etc.' why not point me to some reading materials or try to express the difference yourself?
                            Beause I know, and apparently you don't. Not really any other way to say it; the problem is that reality is not a conern in intellectualsm. And you are extremely intellectual.

                            Originally posted by onesp1ng View Post
                            you're free to tell me what you think; it's not personal at all. anyhow, i respect your opinion, and i'm open to changing mine.
                            It is not my intention to change your mind. Besides, it is not an opinion. But thank you for respecting it; and know that I, probably more than anyone on this board, understand where you are coming from.

                            Originally posted by onesp1ng View Post
                            at this moment, it's a bit like you're resorting to ad hominem instead of focusing on the logic itself, as well as asserting another opinion as fact.
                            Ad hominem is a way of saying "You’ve given me enough reason not to agree with you, so I won’t. Ha!”

                            The joke is on you.If you need “reading material”, all the information necessary to eventually understand my point of view is in my first post.

                            Again, I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. Only you can make your own decisions.
                            How about this; find me a “respectable”, peer-reviewed scientific article that says it has proven that its thesis is true. You will quickly see why intellectualism is flawed when used as a means by which to discuss truth and knowledge rather than fact and theory.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I dont know what is ur background dog, but as a young philosopy student, like some gelugpa monks, i studied epistemology and logic. My feeling is that indeed to know that u know is very difficult and i keep on exploring socrate s thoughts on the absence of knowledge. At this point i think it might more interesting to inquire ignorance than knowledge, and that it will also lead to less sectarian attitudes.

                              With some tibetan friends we practice this meditation: eyes closed, focusing on breath when a thought, emotion or sensation arise we try to see if we know if it is true, real or leading to the end of every suffering. I kind of like this meditation.

                              Peace and love

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                the problem with his 'argument,' for lack of a better word, is that the parameters of the poll have already been set. he doesn't want to justify his thinking, because he must understand, if he does, what will happen next. the thing is, he doesn't have to: it's already been said.

                                and, even if he's playing a game of logical absolutes, thinking, 'he knows, we don't, etc.' lol there are still flaws that he hasn't considered. it's not just 'if a = a, a can not = b, etc.' might as well just throw out the whole daodejing, if so!

                                assuming and asserting that whatever is conceived, whether it be knowledge, existance, etc. - that which is - is 'god,' given the pre-established poll criteria, is a logical fallacy. that's why i contend that both (the first and last choices) are irrational; they's just irrational for different reasons.

                                but if the parameters were different, hell, i might agree with him.
                                ZhongwenMovies.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X