MoFo's Religion

Me too! We must have stroked them too much. (I think that's how old wive's tale goes isn't it? )

Ah no, materialist is probably a fair term for this discussion. (I have noticed you append some interesting aspects to it that I think I disagree with, so if I have an opposition to the term-use, it probably lies there. IE in the past you have ascribed a 'mechanical' & 'wonderless' vibe to it, stemming from what you see [I suspect] as the cold mechanical 'randomness' of a world arriving from 'chance', as opposed to one consciously guided/designed etc. Whereas I feel most materialists, of which I'm a borderline member, find plenty of wonder in the existence of our selves, and the ongoing complexity around us, given such apparently inauspicious beginnings )

Anyways, total side point...

Andddd.... it turns out we're in agreement. Think we said on the other thread that indeterminacy doesn't create a case for free will per se. But it does undermine the 3-point arg you've put forward a few times - a la the one posed to Will. Didn't realise you agreed the 'I'm not convinced matter responds in consistent ways' style response is a valid counter. As you were

Although I take it you no longer claim 'Athiests can't believe in free will'. Do you? (Certainly I can believe in free will. I can't prove it. But I don't have categorical grounds for disproving it either )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Was Jesus Christ Chinese?
By Benjamin Fulford
4-17-8 Few people in the West are aware that 500 years before Christ was born, there lived a sage in China whose teachings are uncannily similar to those of Jesus. His name was Mozi ??or the "tattooed one." In his time he was a serious rival to Confucius. He also had a million-man army at his disposal. Mozi preached that all men are created equal. Unlike Confucius, who said relatives had first priority, he preached universal love and caring for the poorest and weakest in society. Mozi also said there was a heaven and an afterlife and that people who became rich through unrighteous means would not be able to go there. Just as Jesus said it was better to teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime than it was go give him a fish, so did Mozi emphasize teaching the poor the skills they needed to care for themselves. The most important teaching of Mozi, however, was the concept of "Gi" which has been translated as "righteousness" but would be better translated as "life" or "love." The idea is to draw a line and fight whenever Gi or life is being harmed. So, was Jesus copying Mozi? This is what informed speculation can tell us: First of all, we know the Romans had trade with China because we know they had silk. We also know the Library of Alexandria demanded that all traders bring books. It is thus highly likely the scholars at Alexandria had access to the works of Mozi. Jesus may well have been a Jewish scholar who learned of the teachings of Mozi. Perhaps the Romans had Christ crucified because he stirred up the poor and the downtrodden with Mohist ideas. What we do know is that a Mohist (followers of Mozi NOT Mao) style rebellion appeared in the Roman empire in the form of early Christianity. Mozi had a teaching that was similar to the idea of turning the other cheek when hit. In his teachings the idea was to "show obedience with your face while disobeying in your heart." This was a form of passive disobedience that was very hard for rulers to overcome. Nobody openly opposed them yet things did not get done. This may have been what prompted the Roman emperors to try to adopt and subvert this slave religion to their own ends. They also tacked on ideas, such as the death and resurrection of the Sun God, from other ancient religions. This could explain some key differences between Mohism and Christianity as is taught today. It was with great dismay when I recently watched the leader of a Christian group in the correctly analyze the horrendous situation in the US but then conclude that "we do not need to do anything about it because they will go to hell and we will go to heaven." The Mohists, want justice in this life, not the next and thus are not opposed to violence as a last resort. Mozi had a well armed, highly trained army at his disposal. The army would only fight defensive battles on behalf of small kingdoms that were being attacked by larger kingdoms. Usually, the mere presence of his army was enough to prevent war. If attacked, their resistance was fanatical. Their view was that "if we are going to die anyway, we will take as many of them with us as possible." Mozi developed many new types of armament and fortification. He was not just a philosopher but also a general, an engineer and an inventor among many other things. According to Western scholars Mohism vanished without a trace in the 2nd century BC. It is true the Qin emperor, who ended the warring states era by unifying China brutally suppressed the Mohists and burned their books. However, they did not vanish, the merely went underground and became secret societies. After Mozi died his disciples split into three factions. Today, their spiritual descendants are known as the triads. The triads are not the same a crime gangs. Most of their members are engaged in legitimate business. However, whenever they perceive that government has become evil and is excessively exploiting the common people, they make secret preparations for revolt. As the Chinese proverb has it: "all it takes is a single spark to start a prairie fire." Time and time again in the history of China they have started peasant revolts. Most recently we saw the Taiping rebellion of the 1800's and the Boxer rebellion of 1900. Their big success was in overthrowing the last Emperor in 1911 and installing Sun Yat Sen. They also threw the Soviets out of China in 1967 and freed China from the last vestiges of colonial domination.



Chinese Jesus is way cool.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

__________________

No, he was Egyptian and named Horus.



And Bill Cosby has me rolling on the floor.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I think this thread has seen enough discussion on Christianity vs Atheism. Now, let's talk about Islam Vs Buddhism.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

I like the turn this thread has made. I'll keep it open.

In order to understand the art of Zen, one must first empty his cup.

Well, since things have calmed down, I'd just like to reflect on the general course that this discussion has taken as a possible bookend.

Everyone seems to like to oppose religion to science -- probably due to the ramblings of Dawkins et. al. -- but this is really a terrible opposition. They are not at all on the same footing. Apples and oranges, as they say. But, while Yoda seems to realize that science is not an appropriate substitute for religion, he continues to argue against the category of 'materialism' as if it were synonymous with a purely scientific account of reality.

How can we resolve this bad dyad of religion and science?

Simply to posit the properly metaphysical view of materialism as ALSO being that which eludes science. It is popular for religious people to say that some Truths elude science and that religion explains those things. What this argument fails to understand is that materialists KNOW that science will always be 'incomplete,' but that the Truths which elude science are still found IN the material world.

Nothing about science itself suggests that it is exhaustive of the material world. Thus, a scientific account of the material world canNOT be a true account of the being of the material world.

While pretty much all major religions were formulated long before science ever emerged as the discipline it is now, it's funny to note how it almost seems as if religions were posited as a REACTION to the FAILURE of science. It's like they are so upset that science is finite they throw up their hands and flee the immanent world.

But this NIHILISM is not necessary. Materialism says that the limitedness of science does not at all compell us to abandon the material world but rather that this remainder helps us understand the true nature of being. Materialism freely admits that science will never get at pure being and makes the positive claim that pure being reveals itself as just that being which enables an 'incomplete' science.

This new opposition between materialism and religion asks not "what can science not touch?" but rather "what is the precise way in which science fails?" Only in the latter question can the true nature of pure being find voice.

The end (for now).

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

If it was calm, why did you have to go and type that?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Nobody knows what he said so it won't stir anything up.

I thought that was rather lovely.

And you two old cynics should stop twirling your moustaches

I'm actually twirling my beard. There's more of it to twirl, and besides, it makes me look like "God".

I owe you a couple of other replies, donniedarko, but I'm clearing through a post backlog, so for now I just want to reply to this, since it's the end result of a question I'm asking quite a few people in here:

Precisely. There is no reason; you just believe you should care about others, and it can't be rationally explained or defended. So my question is this: why is this any more valid than someone who believes in religion for the same reason? If it's okay for you to be irrational about this just because you feel a strong desire to do it, how can you possibly criticize someone for believing in God for the same reason?

I'm just going to quote this and leave it out of context, on this new page, for someone else to come find and misinterpret. Goodtimes.

This is true, I do attach these connotations to it. But that's because I think they inevitably follow from the definition.

The capacity for "wonder" in a materialist is a lot like their capacity for morality: people feel it no matter what they believe. And I find that to be very good and very reassuring. But the question is whether or not they have rational grounds for thinking it's anything more than instinctual remnants or chemical interactions. And, since they invariably don't, why they should ascribe any special import to either.

Most of my arguments aren't really against atheism or materialism per se (though I have those, too! ), but against the atheist or materialist who wants to cling to things like objective morality, truth, equality, wonder, or even their own ability to think rationally, while denying the kinds of things that gives these ideas any authority. If an atheist is willing to say "yeah, these are all just tricks of the mind and mean nothing, but it's easier to just play along," that would be a valid response. But I'd then have to ask (as I just did to donniedarko) "okay, so...shouldn't you kinda drop all the self-righteous stuff about being super rational and skeptical, since you just admitted to me you're willingly giving yourself over to an arbitrary ruse? And if it's okay for you to be irrational because you find it easier, why can't believers believe in their allegedly irrational God because they find it easier? Why is that less valid?"

This line of argument doesn't tell us if God exists, but it does tell us a) atheists are often very selective about their skepticism, and turn it off when convenient as much as believers, and b) that human nature implies standards outside of ourselves. It may do so erroneously, but humans consistently behave as if these other standards actually exist--even when they deny them outright! That seems significant.

Yaycool.

The three beliefs in question still apply because will has said he believes in all three. He can augment this if he wishes, of course, but he seems to want to hang onto all of them and insist there's no contradiction between them. Which ain't gonna work.

Anyway, if someone did want to ditch the third, though, I'm pretty sure a few pointed questions would prove that to be equally problematic, albeit in another direction.

Very technically, yes. But just as I sometimes use "atheists" instead of "materialists" because they're almost always the same, I'm also using "can't" instead of "almost certainly can't given their other principles and beliefs." I can certainly construct an atheist who isn't a materialist, and I can certainly construct an atheist who could consistently believe in free will. But given that almost all atheism is based on a general skepticism and demand for empirical evidence of things, it would be almost impossible to reconcile that with faith in some far-off, mind-bending scientific reconciliation that allows for free will.

So, even though I usually loathe to do such things, that phrase is definitely the compact, bite-size version of a slightly (but not significantly!) more nuanced argument, yes.

Was he criticizing someone for believing in God or criticizing the way they believed in God, finding proof he exists because he prayed someone would win and they did, or questioning the existence of dinosaurs because it contradicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Both. Like most of the people in this thread, in the process of criticizing the claims about dinosaurs and race cars, he made other, more sweeping claims and implications about faith in general. He rhetorically asked if "Christians are either to ignorant or lazy to look for answers." Maybe this was just rhetorical, and maybe not; either way, I'm asking.

But even the distinction you're making doesn't change the point. Either it's okay to be irrational when you feel like it or not. If it's okay for atheists to just irrationally give themselves over to their instincts when family is involved, why wouldn't it be okay for this guy to give himself over to some irrational cause-and-effect about race cars and prayer?