Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Home » Forums » The Loveland Arms – pub chat » Mind Expanding Things that Aren't Science

Tags:

Author
Topic
#5468

We seem to have lost the old Thought Provoking (TM) mind expansion thread, so here’s a replacement.
.
Astrology:
.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/06/i-was-an-astrologer-how-it-works-psychics
.
Before you scoff, there are some interesting insights in the article that you don’t have to be a believer to appreciate. Here’s a couple of extracts that made me wonder:
.

I’d understood organised religion to be something between an embarrassment and an evil. Yet as Aids did its dreadful work – this was the 1990s – I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying. Christian volunteers checked on derelict men with vomit down their clothes. I became uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

.

I also learned that intelligence and education do not protect against superstition. Many customers were stockbrokers, advertising executives or politicians, dealing with issues whose outcomes couldn’t be controlled. It’s uncertainty that drives people into woo, not stupidity, so I’m not surprised millennials are into astrology. They grew up with Harry Potter and graduated into a precarious economy, making them the ideal customers.

.

Some repeat customers claimed I’d made very specific predictions, of a kind I never made. It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation – I would weave a story and, later, the customer’s memory would add new elements. I got to test this theory after a friend raved about a reading she’d had, full of astonishingly accurate predictions. She had a tape of the session, so I asked her to play it.

The clairvoyant had said none of the things my friend claimed. Not a single one. My friend’s imagination had done all the work.

.
And my favourite:
.

I can still make the odd forecast, though. Here’s one: the venture capital pouring into astrology apps will create a fortune telling system that works, because humans are predictable. As people follow the advice, the apps’ predictive powers will increase, creating an ever-tighter electronic leash. But they’ll be hugely popular – because if you sprinkle magic on top, you can sell people anything.

Viewing 100 replies - 201 through 300 (of 1,187 total)
Author
Replies
  • #22968

    If I’m allowed to keep just one cussword, then…maybe.

    It has to be the c-word.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #22981

    just one cussword

    Belgium, no doubt.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #22985

    What’s wrong with Belgium? They have swans and sh.. hang on, since when is there no evidence for prehistoric geometry?

  • #22987

    Belgium is creepy as fuck.

  • #22990

    After I killed them, I dropped the gun in the Thames, washed the residue off me hands in the bathroom of a Burger King, and walked home to await instructions. Shortly thereafter the instructions came through. “Get the fuck out of London, youse dumb fucks. Get to Bruges.” I didn’t even know where Bruges fucking was.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #22993

    I never managed to get to Bruges. I hear it’s like a fucking fairytale or something.

     

    Some of the places in Belgium where I’ve been have a weird vibe, Brussels is an odd place. Not always pleasant. But Belgium has a lot of good things as well. The Ardennes are beautiful, but also a bit eerie.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #23110

    If writing is telepathy, how come half the time I’ve no clue what I’m wittering on about never mind everyone else?

    Because that’s what it would be like reading your mind, too.

     

    What does his hat look like?

    It looks rad. Totally rad.

  • #23127

    No, I don’t think so. It’s more like there are too many overlapping thoughts (it’s like a dawn chorus in there) and I don’t know which ones to pick. If you could read my mind you’d see them all at once.

    The hat looks rad now because you made it so.

    I Professor X-ed the hat and you Picarded it!

    You missed that it’s a glass octopus but that’s cool. I need more test dummies, but I think it’s fair to say we’ve proven the existence of telepathy. Mind blown!

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #23128

    (Don’t mention the octopus)

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #23129

    Sorry, I forgot. You’re the one who put it there in the first place.

    Now you’ve proven the existence of mind control.

    What am I thinking right now?

  • #23132

    What am I thinking right now?

    Yes.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #23137

    What am I thinking right now?

    Yes.

    and No and in-between.

    Have you ever seen footage of a glass octopus? They look like they shouldn’t exist. Perhaps Shane Black dreamed them whilst watching Close Encounters of The Abyss.

  • #23419

  • #23473

    I refuse to click a video that doesn’t even give a hint of what it is about beyond “MUST SEE! SHARE NOW!”.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #23553

    I refuse

    But it said “must”.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #23578

    must

    Must

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24411

    Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it

  • #24472

    Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it

    That’s a very mediocre article. I mean, he’s not wrong when he is attacking the view that this is a teleological process and that advancement of science automatically leads to the the eradication of religion. But he deduces sweeping blanket statements from particular instances in a way that isn’t valid, and does at no point get to some of the fundamental underlying ideological processes behind all this.

    In the end, in contrast to Harrison’s view, it does hold true that the discovery of science and the Age of Enlightenment and the rising belief in rationality has led to secularisation and to religion becoming less important both in the grand scheme of politics and in many people’s personal lives. There were no atheists or agnostics in the Middle Ages; today, a third of people in Germany say they are not religious at all.

    He is completely right in pointing out that this is not an automatic given and that just because the world and what we know has changed, secularisation doesn’t automatically follow. Current trends in many countries do show that. But just because it doesn’t happen in every case doesn’t mean that isn’t exactly what happened in Western Europe. And I think the conclusion he draws, especially given the way he puts it, is very problematic indeed:

    If anything, it is science that is subject to increasing threats to its authority and social legitimacy. Given this, science needs all the friends it can get. Its advocates would be well advised to stop fabricating an enemy out of religion, or insisting that the only path to a secure future lies in a marriage of science and secularism.

    Or in other words, you better back the fuck off, science, because religion is on the rise and will fucking take you out.

    You know, sounds to me like religon is the enemy, actually. At least as far as this guy is concerned.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Christian.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Christian.
    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24496

    I think the character of religion is definitely changing. Not so much superstition and creationism – or less ot it anyway – but more a kind of overarching system of values and cultural attitudes.

     

    I occasionally watch videos by some traditionalist Catholics because it is quite an interesting belief system. They think they are in some epic battle against evil ideologies that have invaded the church. It does seem to imply the mainstream Catholic church has changed a lot, they are diametrically opposed to pretty much everything pope Francis says or does. However there are many cardinals, bishops etc that are still quite on the traditional side. One who is said to be a contender for popedom is an African cardinal, cardinal Sarah. It would be interesting if we got a black pope and he would rail against modernism and liberalism.

    Protestantism is a mish mash of conservative and ultra-liberal. Several protestant churches in the Netherlands are proudly on the side of the LGBT issue for instance. There are some very conservative protestants here but they are a small minority.

  • #24548

    I think the character of religion is definitely changing.

    Gods corpse is rotting and maggots have infested the promised land.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24549

    I think the character of religion is definitely changing.

    Gods corpse is rotting and maggots have infested the promised land.

    So the communion bread tastes like that Italian maggot cheese? Yummy…

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24637

    I think religion does a few different things for people. They are not just one thing, so asking what is the core of Christianity or any other religion is always a bit iffy. I think almost everybody has some kind of need for transcendence and religion fulfills that, but other things can do that too. There is also a weird, often treacherous social function, where being part of a religious community gives a kind of nobility. Professed allegiance to some higher set of rules that gives you some kind of social credit points, even if you might not actually follow those rules.

  • #24639

    The thing with religion, especially monotheism is
    that they give you God as this all powerful, energy
    Supreme Being and Creator who always existed from infinity to infinity
    etc… and you are to accept it and not ask any questions
    or inquire about this at all. That goes against the
    inquisitive mind of scientific analysis.

    The same goes with the other belief systems like
    the “mystic law of the universe” and chanting
    mantras and so on….

  • #24642

    The Chinese philosopher Mengzi (or Mencius) said people who believe everything that is written in a book should not be reading books.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24662

    Yeah but he said that in a book.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24663

    Yeah but he said that in a book.

    True, but I don’t believe what he says. I just thought it was funny.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24711

    The thing with religion, especially monotheism is
    that they give you God as this all powerful, energy
    Supreme Being and Creator who always existed from infinity to infinity
    etc… and you are to accept it and not ask any questions
    or inquire about this at all. That goes against the
    inquisitive mind of scientific analysis.

    Thing is, I do agree with the article above that it doesn’t have to be this way. It’s how things have shaken out with American evangelism and the Catholic Church (at least for much of its history), but those are specific organisational structures. For them, it is very important that they, as keepers of God’s will, or the Bible, know exactly what God wants us to do. And that this establishes rules for our behaviour, and boundaries for our inquisitiveness, if it comes in conflict with what God has supposedly told us about the world.

    But that doesn’t have to be an intrinsic part of religion. It’s pretty easy to believe in an omniscient and omnipresent supreme being who encourages you to ask questions and be curious about the world. The Greek philosophers didn’t have any problems with religion. (I mean, they did, philosophically, but nobody was persecuting them for being inquisitive.) The German Catholic and Protestant churches don’t have a problem with science, either.

    I think this is why Scientology is such a success story; there are not enough religions actually engaging science in a positive manner; celebrating it. Scientology is a hoax, but the idea of a science-accepting religion is what drew people in originally.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24713

    I think the number of Christians that don’t want you asking questions and looking too deeply into things, taking some stuff from the Bible literally rather than allegorically, is pretty small.

     

    Maybe that’s why I’m fascinated with those trad catholics. It is such an odd mindset. They’re clearly intelligent but they have a corpus of beliefs that is ironclad. “It is that way because so and so said it is, are you saying saint Augustine was wrong, this ritual is extra holy when it is said in Latin” etc etc. They still seem nice and well adjusted in most areas, at least more so than the weird Dutch ultracalvinists.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24719

    the number of Christians that don’t want you asking questions and looking too deeply into things […] is pretty small.

    And they’re all employed by the Vatican, working tirelessly to suppress stories of child abuse.

     

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24724

    The Vatican leadership is comically evil, but I have a suspicion the child abuse is about the same in most social groups and institutions. The Catholics just get more attention because the “oath of silence” has broken down, and also because some people love it when Catholics are in trouble. Child abuse in Buddhism is also widespread but there is a big taboo against speaking out.

     

    Reminder that this is what the papal audience hall in the Vatican looks like:

     

     

     

  • #24736

    Scientology is a hoax, but the idea of a science-accepting religion is what drew people in originally.

    I thought it was the Aliens; same thing with the Church of Latter-day Saints. Religious folk loooove aliens…

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24747

    . The Catholics just get more attention because the “oath of silence” has broken down, and also because some people love it when Catholics are in trouble. Child abuse in Buddhism is also widespread but there is a big taboo against speaking out.

    The Church came under fire especially because rather than even quietly deal with the paedophiles in their midst, they just moved them to another parish and hoped they wouldn’t be found out.  And when it was discovered that this had happened many times over, they said “don’t worry, we’ve got this under control and we’ll sort it”.  And then we discovered that not only was the problem more widespread than the scandals that had already taken place, but they had continued to move paedophile priests around and turned a blind eye to them abusing children.

    And again, they claimed that they had it under control and it wouldn’t happen again and governments didn’t need to step in – and we found out again that the scandals had been wider and deeper than we knew, and they continued to move paedophile priests around and turned a blind eye to them abusing children.

    And again, they claimed that they had it under control.  And this time at least when further shit came out we discovered that they were still hiding and protecting paedophile priests, but at least they’d learned to keep them away from children.

    So yeah, maybe Buddhism has a problem with people using the position of authority that being a religious figure in a community brings to abuse children, but you know what?  There isn’t a central authority for all Buddhists that claims to speak for the entire religion, that claims to be a moral authority on this planet earth, and proved themselves to be morally bankrupt by protecting and enabling thousands of abusers.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24749

    they just moved them to another parish and hoped they wouldn’t be found out

    And I grew up thinking Father Ted was a comedy.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24751

    It it quite shocking, in some US states they have actually lobbied and paid for lawyers to ensure the statutes of limitations are not changed so they can face prosecution. It’s not even secret, they are campaigning publicly. They are doing it now.

    I do agree with Arjan that any position that allows access and control over children attracts these people. It’s in all colours of religion, education, scout troops and sports coaches and even 1970s TV presenters.

    The loathsome thing about the Catholic Church is their organisation pays a lot of money to cover it up and avoid prosecution at all costs.

    4 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24752

    . The Catholics just get more attention because the “oath of silence” has broken down, and also because some people love it when Catholics are in trouble. Child abuse in Buddhism is also widespread but there is a big taboo against speaking out.

    The Church came under fire especially because rather than even quietly deal with the paedophiles in their midst, they just moved them to another parish and hoped they wouldn’t be found out.  And when it was discovered that this had happened many times over, they said “don’t worry, we’ve got this under control and we’ll sort it”.  And then we discovered that not only was the problem more widespread than the scandals that had already taken place, but they had continued to move paedophile priests around and turned a blind eye to them abusing children.

    And again, they claimed that they had it under control and it wouldn’t happen again and governments didn’t need to step in – and we found out again that the scandals had been wider and deeper than we knew, and they continued to move paedophile priests around and turned a blind eye to them abusing children.

    And again, they claimed that they had it under control.  And this time at least when further shit came out we discovered that they were still hiding and protecting paedophile priests, but at least they’d learned to keep them away from children.

    So yeah, maybe Buddhism has a problem with people using the position of authority that being a religious figure in a community brings to abuse children, but you know what?  There isn’t a central authority for all Buddhists that claims to speak for the entire religion, that claims to be a moral authority on this planet earth, and proved themselves to be morally bankrupt by protecting and enabling thousands of abusers.

    I think all the criticism towards how the leadership handled this is justified, I just don’t think it should be directed at the believers.

  • #24756

    I think all the criticism towards how the leadership handled this is justified, I just don’t think it should be directed at the believers.

    I don’t think anyone has claimed that lay Catholics are paedophiles though?

  • #24759

    I think all the criticism towards how the leadership handled this is justified, I just don’t think it should be directed at the believers.

    I don’t think anyone has claimed that lay Catholics are paedophiles though?

    Maybe not but I heard plenty of times that given the revelations about the child abuse there must be something wrong with people who are becoming interested in Catholicism. That the predators in the church somehow put the whole teaching and practice in disrepute. “I knew there must be something wrong with these guys, just look at the strange things they believe and how weird they dress.” It’s a weird line of thought but Rogan has  said stuff like this on his podcast a few times. I’ve also heard sentiments like this here in the Netherlands.

     

  • #24760

    It’s a weird line of thought but Rogan has  said stuff like this on his podcast a few times

    Joe Rogan is a fucking idiot and you should never listen to him.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24762

    There is a small Christian denomination here that broke away from the regular Catholic church sometime in the 19th century, called the Old Catholic church. They are tiny though. They have a church in Leiden where a woman is priest. They seem kinda cool. I am not sure wether they also have monasteries. I would like to spend some time in a monastery one of these days.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church_of_the_Netherlands

  • #24778

    . The Catholics just get more attention because the “oath of silence” has broken down, and also because some people love it when Catholics are in trouble. Child abuse in Buddhism is also widespread but there is a big taboo against speaking out.

    The Church came under fire especially because rather than even quietly deal with the paedophiles in their midst, they just moved them to another parish and hoped they wouldn’t be found out.  And when it was discovered that this had happened many times over, they said “don’t worry, we’ve got this under control and we’ll sort it”.  And then we discovered that not only was the problem more widespread than the scandals that had already taken place, but they had continued to move paedophile priests around and turned a blind eye to them abusing children.

    And again, they claimed that they had it under control and it wouldn’t happen again and governments didn’t need to step in – and we found out again that the scandals had been wider and deeper than we knew, and they continued to move paedophile priests around and turned a blind eye to them abusing children.

    And again, they claimed that they had it under control.  And this time at least when further shit came out we discovered that they were still hiding and protecting paedophile priests, but at least they’d learned to keep them away from children.

    So yeah, maybe Buddhism has a problem with people using the position of authority that being a religious figure in a community brings to abuse children, but you know what?  There isn’t a central authority for all Buddhists that claims to speak for the entire religion, that claims to be a moral authority on this planet earth, and proved themselves to be morally bankrupt by protecting and enabling thousands of abusers.

    And there’s the other shit in Ireland with unwed mothers and what they did with the babies.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24780

    I thought it was the Aliens; same thing with the Church of Latter-day Saints. Religious folk loooove aliens…

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24783

    And there’s the other shit in Ireland with unwed mothers and what they did with the babies.

    Oh, it wasn’t just Ireland, Philomena Lynott was stuffed into one in the UK which she literally escaped from with her son. But the last mother and baby home in Ireland wasn’t closed down until 1996.  The church tried to sell the site to a property developer to turn into a hotel a few years ago, but mass protest meant the sale got blocked, we want it turned into a museum and memorial site.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24787

    I would love for Jesus to return and throw a shitfit several magnitudes greater than the one when he sacked the peddlers of the temple of Jerusalem. It’d be the last viral video before the rapture.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24789

    I would love for Jesus to return and throw a shitfit several magnitudes greater than the one when he sacked the peddlers of the temple of Jerusalem. It’d be the last viral video before the rapture.

    If Jesus came back today he’d be in Guantanamo Bay so fast your head would spin.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24806

    Scientology is a hoax, but the idea of a science-accepting religion is what drew people in originally.

    I thought it was the Aliens; same thing with the Church of Latter-day Saints. Religious folk loooove aliens…

    Do Mormons even use Kolob as a selling point?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24829

    There is always an issue of comparing these things to the standard of care of the time. I remember reading about cases of homosexual patients who were castrated in a catholic psychiatric hospital, in the 50s. Now is that the fault of the Catholic church or psychiatric malpractice? This was also the time when lobotomies were still performed. There was commotion about this when it was revealed, egg throwing at catholic churches etc. and later it turned out this was probably more common, and happened in non-Catholic institutions as well.

  • #24844

    I think the number of Christians that don’t want you asking questions and looking too deeply into things, taking some stuff from the Bible literally rather than allegorically, is pretty small.

    I think you have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

    If you say, “I follow the teachings of Christ but I don’t believe the Bible is literal” then you’re not really a Christian. You’re an atheist who happens to do some of the same things that Christians also do.

    Because Christ literally says that the Bible is literally true. If you don’t agree with him then sorry but you’re not a Christian. You don’t get to pick and choose which elements of your God’s teaching are infallible. He’s God, it’s all infallible.

  • #24846

    I think you have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

    The Catholic Church disagrees with this.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24848

    Because Christ literally says that the Bible is literally true. If you don’t agree with him then sorry but you’re not a Christian.

    Here’s the fun bit. I disagree with that interpretation of what is written.

    (of a book translated several times with varying meanings and that frequently contradicts itself)

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24855

    I think you have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

    The Catholic Church disagrees with this.

    Well if they can pick and choose which bits of the Bible to believe, than can I do the same and still be a Christian? I’ll believe the bits about smiting my enemies and ignore all the annoying bits about charity, please. :yahoo:

     

     

  • #24863

    I think you have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

    The Catholic Church disagrees with this.

    Well if they can pick and choose which bits of the Bible to believe, than can I do the same and still be a Christian? I’ll believe the bits about smiting my enemies and ignore all the annoying bits about charity, please. :yahoo:

     

     

    So what you’re saying is you want to join an Evangelical church?

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24879

    I think the number of Christians that don’t want you asking questions and looking too deeply into things, taking some stuff from the Bible literally rather than allegorically, is pretty small.

    I think you have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

    If you say, “I follow the teachings of Christ but I don’t believe the Bible is literal” then you’re not really a Christian. You’re an atheist who happens to do some of the same things that Christians also do.

    Because Christ literally says that the Bible is literally true. If you don’t agree with him then sorry but you’re not a Christian. You don’t get to pick and choose which elements of your God’s teaching are infallible. He’s God, it’s all infallible.

    Ummm, is it worth pointing out that the New Testament bit wasn’t actually written at the point Jesus was walking around? It represented a kind of “work in progress”, as I understand it. Him saying “it’s all true” would by definition only apply to the Old Testament, one would assume.

    Also, and fair disclosure, atheist talking here, where precisely does he use the word “literally”? And are we sure he didn’t just mean “figuratively”?

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #24884

    Christ literally says that the Bible is literally true

    But he says that in the Bible. ;) If I don’t take the Bible literally, I don’t have to believe everything the Bible says Jesus said.

     

    In the end this is just semantics. Does a Christian mean “someone who believes the Bible is literally true”, even the bits that contradict, or does it mean someone who thinks Christ was pretty cool.

  • #24887

    Christ literally says that the Bible is literally true

    But he says that in the Bible. ;) If I don’t take the Bible literally, I don’t have to believe everything the Bible says Jesus said.

     

    In the end this is just semantics. Does a Christian mean “someone who believes the Bible is literally true”, even the bits that contradict, or does it mean someone who thinks Christ was pretty cool.

    So there are people who follow the philosophy of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, but are atheists, and those that worship him and preform complex rituals to appease deities. Is one not a “real Buddhist”? The only real difference I see is that”atheistic Christianity” is not an established philosophy.

  • #24888

    With Buddhism it is all very diverse. I don’t think you really have an essential “core” of Buddhism, the beliefs and practices are so different. You can compare it to differences in forms of Christianity but I think Buddhism is a bit more extreme in that regard. Pure Land Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism are so different they might as well be two different religions.

     

    That argument is also made for Hinduism, that it isn’t even one religion but more a few related religions. Buddhism at least has the unifying factor that it is based on “what the Buddha taught”, Hinduism doesn’t have something like that.

     

    Honestly I think this idea of having to conform to some book or what some authority figure tells you to believe in order to claim some identity like Christian or Buddhist or whatever is not correct. Just do what you like, and give yourself the label you like. I’m a Krishnaist Taoist Confucian Buddhist Islamic Christian, in a way.  All those religions have interesting things to teach.

  • #24900

    I think you have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

    The Catholic Church disagrees with this.

    What does @Christian say? I reckon he’s got final say.

     

    I don’t think you really have an essential “core” of Buddhism

    Yeah, I remember when I lost what little faith I had in Buddhism. I was reading a paper and while I never read the article, the headline read:

    “BUDDHIST TERRORISTS KILL 43 IN WHEREEVERTHEFUCKISTAN”

    Buddhist… Terrorists?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24915

    What does @christian say? I reckon he’s got final say.

    The way to be Christian is, you don’t take anything literally. At all.

    Do Mormons even use Kolob as a selling point?

    Probably not as much as they should!

    I do love how they’ve found their way into sci-fi, with BSG basically being one big Mormonism story and their spaceship in The Expanse.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24942

    Also, and fair disclosure, atheist talking here, where precisely does he use the word “literally”? And are we sure he didn’t just mean “figuratively”?

    That is a fair point. He may have meant take it figuratively. But assume for a moment that you’re a person who believes Christ is the Son of God and the Bible is testament to that. As soon as you decide part of the Bible is “figurative”, what’s to stop you deciding other parts, such as, “Christ is the Son of God”, are also figurative? The more figurative passages you find, the more likely it becomes that you can’t trust that any of it to be literal. So pretty sure you’re questioning the whole thing, and thinking, you know what, maybe I’m not Christian?

    This is more-or-less what led me to being an Atheist. I don’t think it’s possible to call yourself a Christian when you don’t actually believe your holy book. And picking-and-choosing what to believe, based purely on what suits you, is not actually believing.

  • #24943

    In the end this is just semantics. Does a Christian mean “someone who believes the Bible is literally true”, even the bits that contradict, or does it mean someone who thinks Christ was pretty cool.

    I think it must be the latter. Anyone can think Christ was pretty cool. Even Muslims. Being a Christian implies thinking he was much more than “cool”.

  • #24951

    As soon as you decide part of the Bible is “figurative”, what’s to stop you deciding other parts, such as, “Christ is the Son of God”, are also figurative? The more figurative passages you find, the more likely it becomes that you can’t trust that any of it to be literal. So pretty sure you’re questioning the whole thing, and thinking, you know what, maybe I’m not Christian?

    This kind of thing has caused rifts before. There was a Catholic professor, Eugen Drewermann, who back in the eighties talked about psychoanalytic/metaphoric interpretations of the Bible, including Mary’s virgin birth. There was a fight and in the end, the Church banned him from teaching. Well, I say “the Curch”, but of course specifically who we’re talking about here is the head of the Inquisition at the time, a certain Cardinal Ratzinger. Later to be known as Pope Benedict, of course.

    This is more-or-less what led me to being an Atheist. I don’t think it’s possible to call yourself a Christian when you don’t actually believe your holy book.

    Honestly I don’t see the problem, for a number of reasons.

    1) The Bible was written by men, and men are fallible. Outside of the ten commandments, most of this wasn’t directly dictated by God.
    2) You can’t believe everything in the Bible anyway, as some of its parts contradict each other.
    3) Why would it be any less meaningful to believe that God works with symbolism and metaphor as much as with historical truth? Why wouldn’t you believe that there is a central truth to Christian dogma, that they got the essence of God right, even if not everything is historically accurate?

    Questioning something can lead to many different outcomes. One is rejection of the entire thing (as in my case, and apparently yours). Adaptation to your own specific ideas is another one that I would say is entirely legimtimate.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24964

    Buddhist… Terrorists?

  • #24968

    someone who thinks Christ was pretty cool

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #24978

    Buddhist… Terrorists?

    I’ve no doubt this is what Arian is hinting at but Ashin Wirathu is far from peaceful.   Although it does not nearly have the despotic history of every other religion, there are sects of Buddhism that aren’t all puppies and cuddles, particularly when there are geopolitical and georeligious movements involved.  As I’m sure Gar can tell us, Tibetan Buddhism is not the only aspect of Buddhism, although it is certainly the most widely recognised one.

  • #24983

    Tibetan Buddhism isn’t very peaceful either. There was a time when Tibetan armies invaded China.

     

    The whole Buddhism is peaceful stuff is kind of B.S. At least not in the anti-war, hippie sense of what peace means.

  • #24986

    Yes there was the Qinghai-Tibet war in 1932 (not 20 years after the declaration of independence) but modern Tibet is probably as different to the Tibet of then as modern Germany is to the Germany of the same time.

  • #24996

    I like the Dalai Lama but he and a lot of other Buddhist teachers do try to sell a fake version of Buddhist history. If you look at the history of the countries where Buddhism had a big influence, their history has seen plenty of war and bloodshed, it’s not the peaceful Shangri-La some make it out to be. Maybe not to the extent of Christianity and Islam though.

  • #24998

    I agree with that entirely.

  • #25054

    There are very interesting stories to tell about Tibetan Buddhism’s introduction to the West. The whole movement revolved around a few key figures, the Dalai Lama of course, but also Chogyam Trungpa who is an interesting figure and did perhaps as much to gain Western adherents as the DL. There were a few others, like Sogyal Rinpoche and Thubten Yeshe.

    They all advocated a kind of psychological form of Buddhism, which went hand in hand with the hippie movement in the US. I think @Miqque may have come across some of the Chogyam Trungpa adherents, they were headquartered in Boulder, Colorado where they founded the Naropa University and which I think was also kind of a hippie centre. Chogyam employed “unusual” and what many called abusive teaching methods, often including sex and drugs. He wasn’t a very ascetic personality, being overweight, alcoholic and a cocaine enthusiast. He was however also quite brilliant and wrote very influental books, maybe the most influential in the Western Tibetan movement. Both Chogyam Trungpa and Sogyal Rinpoche were later accused of sexual harassment. There are rumors the CIA was involved in the Chogyam Trungpa organization as they might have tried to use Tibetan diaspora groups as a weapon against China.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25156

    Just to elucidate, I’m not bashing Tibetan Buddhism, there are some great practitioners. Chogyam Trungpa even if he was crazy and did some things that were wrong (probably) had some great students like Pema Chodron. But there are some odd twists and turns in the history of the movement.

     

  • #25157

    Don’t be ridiculous Arjan,  you can’t bash monks.

    You.must challenge them to Mortal Kombat.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25165

    I prefer my monks to be like The Ancient One from Dr. Strange.

  • #25178

    In light of Buddhists being jerks, I encourage all former practitioners to join my religion, Timothyism:

    Timothy has two basic principles:

    1. Everyone gets a cuddle; and

    2. Except if you are stabby.

    Spread the word!

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #25186

    In light of Buddhists being jerks, I encourage all former practitioners to join my religion, Timothyism:

    Timothy has two basic principles:

    1. Everyone gets a cuddle; and

    2. Except if you are stabby.

    Spread the word!

    Given that you’re founding this religion during a pandemic, I think it’s really a suicide cult

     

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25206

    I prefer my monks to be like The Ancient One from Dr. Strange.

    Hypocrites who dabble in dark magic derived from Lovecraftian extradimensional horrors from beyond spacetime? To each their own, I suppose.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25208

    If you look at the history of the countries where Buddhism had a big influence, their history has seen plenty of war and bloodshed,

    I can point you to the present day and the massacre and mass rape of Rohingya in Myanmar.

     

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25285

    It was indeed the event that spurred the discussion – see Arjans photo he posted.

  • #25307

    In recent times Sri Lanka too.

  • #25311

    Some bovine excrement on the flat earth:

    Well, you can drive or better yet, walk cross country for hours and not feel
    any curvature of the ground… The horizon is as far as the eye can see and
    it is straight line….

    5bvvj5wymix41

  • #25339

    Spinoza is an interesting philosopher who thinks everything is predetermined, and good or evil are non-existent, and ethics is just about power: what is “good” for me is what gives me power, what is bad is what takes power away from me. It is a very modern way to see things, I read one book about him but I want to read more.

     

    He kinda turns Christian values upside down. It’s no wonder he was reviled in his time, he was a Dutch Jew who was expelled from the synagogue and also had to fear from the Christian authorities.

  • #25342

    Some bovine excrement on the flat earth:

    Hey!! Bovine excrement has a vital function for cows and it can be repurposed for a lot of useful stuff (fertilizer, explosives, throwing at flat earthers). How dare you compare it to worse-than-useless flat earthers?

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25360

    The Rabbis here actually talked to doctors, officials who deal with the shutdown, and the police to come up with a safe, legal and socially distant way to form an outside prayer quorum. There’s one going on right now, people are staying six feet away from each other, and everybody is either on their own property or on public property where it wouldn’t disturb anyone.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #25463

    Spinoza is an interesting philosopher who thinks everything is predetermined, and good or evil are non-existent, and ethics is just about power: what is “good” for me is what gives me power, what is bad is what takes power away from me. It is a very modern way to see things, I read one book about him but I want to read more.

    I somehow never read any Spinoza, but those are extremely radical ideas for the 17th century. Indeed very modern. It’s no wonder he was a big influence on Nietzsche.

  • #25514

    I just finished watching this thing: Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology

    I’m hooked.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #25752

    Spinoza is an interesting philosopher who thinks everything is predetermined, and good or evil are non-existent, and ethics is just about power: what is “good” for me is what gives me power, what is bad is what takes power away from me. It is a very modern way to see things, I read one book about him but I want to read more.

    I somehow never read any Spinoza, but those are extremely radical ideas for the 17th century. Indeed very modern. It’s no wonder he was a big influence on Nietzsche.

    It does seem there is a lot of Spinoza in Nietzsche, especially on ethics and religion. I really want to read more of him but his main work the Ethics is apparently a tough read. He uses sort of a mathematic method to reach his conclusions, and I am not a math guy…

  • #25756

    He was fond of geometry.

    If you’re a circle you view God as a circle. A triangle sees a triangle whereas Spinoza sees both things and all things. He’s hearkening back to the mediaeval concept of the laws of nature.

  • #25763

    Did you read the Ethics, Bernadette? Do you think it’s doable for someone who is a mathematics nitwit like me, or do you recommend another work of his?

  • #25877

    Did you read the Ethics, Bernadette? Do you think it’s doable for someone who is a mathematics nitwit like me, or do you recommend another work of his?

    I haven’t read it. The full text is available on Project Gutenberg. I’ve read bits and pieces of others such as Russell’s interpretations of Spinoza. I’ve got some notes on him somewhere. By all accounts he was very well-liked. He couldn’t abide abuse of power and was under the tutelage of an ex-Jesuit for a time. Spinoza felt it wasn’t enough to follow rules because you were told to but rather because it was the right thing to do. He didn’t anthropomorphise God as a paternal figure.

    Perhaps someone else here can recommend further works of his.

  • #25883

    I’ve read bits and pieces of others such as Russell’s interpretations of Spinoza.

    Aha, same here. I bought a book about him and read it, I thought it was very badly written but still it was apparent Spinoza is a fascinating dude and I want to learn more.

     

  • #25886

    I’ve just come across this. Haven’t read it yet. Might prove useful:

    Spinoza, Benedict De

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #25986

    Here’s what always comes to mind for me when I hear the name Spinoza:

    You? Spinoza?

    >>Finally, Mitchell remarked of Spinoza, “Once you get into him, he’s rather simple, though. Childish, almost. I don’t agree with him at all.” (TOS: “Where No Man Has Gone Before”)<<

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • #25998

    Once you get into him, he’s rather simple, though. Childish, almost. I don’t agree with him at all

    Is this not true of all philosophers, though? Everything they say is either common sense that didn’t need saying (“I think therefore I am” — duh!) or meaningless gibberish that is obviously incorrect (“One cannot step twice in the same river” — oh yeah? Watch me.)

    :whistle:

     

  • #26014

    But you can’t step twice in the same river. Its name isn’t even constant.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
  • #26016

    *checks sign*
    “River Tyne”
    *splash*
    *gets out*
    *checks sign again*
    “River Tyne”
    *splash*

      :unsure: <u></u>

  • #26018

    In between splashes Pinky and the Brain took over the world. You jumped in the River Brainypink and didn’t even notice.

  • #26031

    Philosophy loses a lot if you just look at the conclusions. The road getting there is interesting too. That’s why reading the Platonic dialogues is so fun. If you just sum up Plato’s conclusions, he just seems like an unhinged tyrant. In the Republic I am mostly on Thrasymachus’s side.

     

    Funny thing is Socrates in The Republic was against poets corrupting the morals of the youth and thought this should be illegal, and he himself gets executed for corrupting the morals of the youth.

     

     

  • #26099

    Is this not true of all philosophers, though? Everything they say is either common sense that didn’t need saying (“I think therefore I am” — duh!) or meaningless gibberish that is obviously incorrect (“One cannot step twice in the same river” — oh yeah? Watch me.)

    I thought it was mainly a cool line to illustrate that someone who used to be dumb is suddenly developing gods-like hyperintelligence. But hey, I watched this episode when I was like ten. (But somehow, it stuck with me…)

    But thinking about this, on the one hand, yeah, I mean, sure, like Arjan says, if you just take the soundbite of the conclusions, it’ll always sound either obvious or dumb, but that’s because you can’t capture all the thinking behind it in just that one sentence. Both sentences that you quoted actually contain mind-blowing, incredibly important thoughts if you know what they are really refering to.

  • #26228

    This is disgusting:

    We must always take the anti-PRC side. Whatever evil FG does, they did not, even by neglect, allow a virus to takeover the world. When the above virus forced America to say that my 1st amendment rights are unsafe, I will take any anti-PRC allies I can find. I believe that FG is thus the lesser of the two evils, and until the virus is a non-issue, must be an ally. Even if you don’t like people praising Trump, even if you hate him, is that more evil than what the PRC did? Even their racism, as long as they don’t assault non-Chinese or cause them harm can be temporarily forgiven in light of COVID.

     

  • #26259

    I can’t understand a word of the text quote there, and I’d rather not click the video, to be honest. What the hell is this about now?

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #26292

    This is disgusting:

    We must always take the anti-PRC side. Whatever evil FG does, they did not, even by neglect, allow a virus to takeover the world. When the above virus forced America to say that my 1st amendment rights are unsafe, I will take any anti-PRC allies I can find. I believe that FG is thus the lesser of the two evils, and until the virus is a non-issue, must be an ally. Even if you don’t like people praising Trump, even if you hate him, is that more evil than what the PRC did? Even their racism, as long as they don’t assault non-Chinese or cause them harm can be temporarily forgiven in light of COVID.

     

    He’s saying the commies are bad though, he’s not picking sides between the regime and Falun Gong, he is just saying Falun Gong is crazy.

     

    edit: Although he does seem to be making light of terrible treatment and mass incarceration of Falun Gong practitioners, so fuck this piece of shit.

    3 users thanked author for this post.
  • #27373

    3 users thanked author for this post.
Viewing 100 replies - 201 through 300 (of 1,187 total)

This topic is temporarily locked.

Skip to toolbar