So you agree with the Gronk!Daniel said:
Happy commercial non-denominational autumn holiday
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
The Gronk said:
Much more interesting than this other stuff!!
Brookie4eva
Bencher
Mark from Brisbane said:
Mine do too, and I'm not a girl 😀 😀
Rex
Bencher
What I see in a baby or a young child is curiosity, not belief.
Belief in a known concept of God, belief that there is no God, they're the same thing. They're both belief that the thought, or combination of thoughts, we are holding is the truth. And when we believe the thoughts we hold are true what happens to our curiosity? What happens to tolerance? what happens to listening? What happens to our seeing of anything which doesn't fit into our definition of truth?
Atheists, theists, what difference really? Both worship their thoughts. Both follow their religion. Their thoughts are their religion. And both "know" the other's religion is false.
And belief in science, in accumulation of knowledge, is merely the latest socially acceptable religion. The most creative and effective scientists don't "believe" in science. They are like children, with insatiable curiosity, and an absence of fixed beliefs.
Matthew 18:3
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
If the churches understood even that one statement by Jesus, there may be an end to their religious wars.
Belief in a known concept of God, belief that there is no God, they're the same thing. They're both belief that the thought, or combination of thoughts, we are holding is the truth. And when we believe the thoughts we hold are true what happens to our curiosity? What happens to tolerance? what happens to listening? What happens to our seeing of anything which doesn't fit into our definition of truth?
Atheists, theists, what difference really? Both worship their thoughts. Both follow their religion. Their thoughts are their religion. And both "know" the other's religion is false.
And belief in science, in accumulation of knowledge, is merely the latest socially acceptable religion. The most creative and effective scientists don't "believe" in science. They are like children, with insatiable curiosity, and an absence of fixed beliefs.
Matthew 18:3
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
If the churches understood even that one statement by Jesus, there may be an end to their religious wars.
You are putting childlike innocence - and ignorance - on a pedestal. Sure it's fine for children to be innocent of the ways of the world (provided there are adults around to look out for them). Grown-ups on the other hand have a responsibility to figure out what is happening. Don't you think it's a cop-out for grown-ups to wander around gazing in awe and wonder as they examine each item or event without having any idea what it is?
Rex
Bencher
Childlike curiosity is innocence, it is in no way ignorance. When we believe we know something, when we don't, that is ignorance. And it is ignorance because we've stopped looking - preferring instead our "knowledge" - our believed memories and concepts.
Take your kid for a walk through the forest. He's curious and says "what's that?" We tell him that's an ant's nest. We define it in a word. The danger is our kid believes us, believes that's all he needs to know, and then stores that away as a memory of truth for retrieval. Next time he sees an ant's nest the thought may implicitly arise - "oh that's another ant's nest, I already know that. Nothing to learn there". There is a sense of certainty and competence, but it is only an illusion. The label is not the object. And in the knowing, the enquiry is lost. He may stop looking, instead looking for the next label to remember. So he looks at the ant's nest, and the world, through his sets of memories and concepts and labels. Not really even looking any more at the ant's nest, or the world. The innocence is lost.
"Grown-ups on the other hand have a responsibility to figure out what is happening." Are you confusing labelling and categorising (intellectual knowing) with experiencing and enquiring (intuitive knowing)? Is our intellect our tool or our master? And how is it that children learn so much faster than adults? Do they figure out what is happening through their natural curiosity and enquiry - or do we need to treat them as information machines, sit them behind desks and pump "expert" information into them?
Our schools are fundamentally belief-acquisition mechanisms. Yes? Captain Cook discovered Australia in 1770. Integrate x and you get x squared divided by two plus c. Chlorophyll is the green pigment in plants which converts sunlight into usable energy. The student encouraged and rewarded is the one who blindly follows the belief system and regurgitates the accepted "truth". Very religious process. Einstein was seen in school as lazy, slow, quite untalented and would never amount to anything. The school system tends to churn out unmotivated, deadened robots. And depression and suicide only increase every year, despite all the expert "best practice" drugs we throw at the known "chemical imbalance" problem. We become unable to really think for ourselves, openly and creatively. The schools are our modern-day church institutions.
Yet children seem to learn best through enquiry, not belief. Which method is more enlivening for our children?
In a world which constantly changes, and is ambiguous and multidimensional, which child becomes best equipped to deal with change? Especially major change. The information collector or the open enquirer? Which path is the more responsible?
Take your kid for a walk through the forest. He's curious and says "what's that?" We tell him that's an ant's nest. We define it in a word. The danger is our kid believes us, believes that's all he needs to know, and then stores that away as a memory of truth for retrieval. Next time he sees an ant's nest the thought may implicitly arise - "oh that's another ant's nest, I already know that. Nothing to learn there". There is a sense of certainty and competence, but it is only an illusion. The label is not the object. And in the knowing, the enquiry is lost. He may stop looking, instead looking for the next label to remember. So he looks at the ant's nest, and the world, through his sets of memories and concepts and labels. Not really even looking any more at the ant's nest, or the world. The innocence is lost.
"Grown-ups on the other hand have a responsibility to figure out what is happening." Are you confusing labelling and categorising (intellectual knowing) with experiencing and enquiring (intuitive knowing)? Is our intellect our tool or our master? And how is it that children learn so much faster than adults? Do they figure out what is happening through their natural curiosity and enquiry - or do we need to treat them as information machines, sit them behind desks and pump "expert" information into them?
Our schools are fundamentally belief-acquisition mechanisms. Yes? Captain Cook discovered Australia in 1770. Integrate x and you get x squared divided by two plus c. Chlorophyll is the green pigment in plants which converts sunlight into usable energy. The student encouraged and rewarded is the one who blindly follows the belief system and regurgitates the accepted "truth". Very religious process. Einstein was seen in school as lazy, slow, quite untalented and would never amount to anything. The school system tends to churn out unmotivated, deadened robots. And depression and suicide only increase every year, despite all the expert "best practice" drugs we throw at the known "chemical imbalance" problem. We become unable to really think for ourselves, openly and creatively. The schools are our modern-day church institutions.
Yet children seem to learn best through enquiry, not belief. Which method is more enlivening for our children?
In a world which constantly changes, and is ambiguous and multidimensional, which child becomes best equipped to deal with change? Especially major change. The information collector or the open enquirer? Which path is the more responsible?
Rex, I think your 'Atheism is another religion' line is extremely dependent on the definition of Atheism. In its purest sense, Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not a belief that there is no God necessarily. My point about babies being Atheists stems from the notion that they do not yet believe in God and therefore are not theists.
In some respects you're right when you say that strong atheists or anti-theists are equally closed minded about their 'religion' (though I don't think that word is suitable). At the same time, however, isn't the default position to believe that something doesn't exist until it is shown/proven that it does? Take fairies for example, do you: a) believe that fairies exist, b) believe that fairies don't exist, or c) aren't sure whether fairies exist. You're probable b or c, but quite frankly it doesn't matter. Either viewpoint (b/c) allows you to live your life the exact same way. If you aren't sure, then you're happy to be proven either way. If you believe fairies don't exist, I would be surprised if you would maintain that belief in the face of proof.
Even stronger atheists like Dawkins, or myself, or 'agnostics' (atheists according to the purest definition outlined above) like Dan would HAVE to be open to believing in god should undeniable and concrete evidence be shown. If they didn't, then and only then, could you say that 'atheism is like a religion'.
In some respects you're right when you say that strong atheists or anti-theists are equally closed minded about their 'religion' (though I don't think that word is suitable). At the same time, however, isn't the default position to believe that something doesn't exist until it is shown/proven that it does? Take fairies for example, do you: a) believe that fairies exist, b) believe that fairies don't exist, or c) aren't sure whether fairies exist. You're probable b or c, but quite frankly it doesn't matter. Either viewpoint (b/c) allows you to live your life the exact same way. If you aren't sure, then you're happy to be proven either way. If you believe fairies don't exist, I would be surprised if you would maintain that belief in the face of proof.
Even stronger atheists like Dawkins, or myself, or 'agnostics' (atheists according to the purest definition outlined above) like Dan would HAVE to be open to believing in god should undeniable and concrete evidence be shown. If they didn't, then and only then, could you say that 'atheism is like a religion'.
Rex you must be thrilled at the purity of Gronk's observations. I know I am. Meanwhile, Cody can you please tell us your word for the belief that there is no god (that is, what the rest of the English speaking world would call 'atheism')?
Dan, its true his definition of religion is important - something I wouldn't mind hearing actually.
SER8 - from wikipedia:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Pretty sure that's what I was alluding to. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
And my term for the belief that there is no god is anti-theism or strong atheist. That's what Dawkins is, and to a lesser extent, I am too. But at the same time, that's going by belief as defined by the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. (Also from Wikipedia).
Need me to elucidate anything else SER? 😛
SER8 - from wikipedia:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Pretty sure that's what I was alluding to. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
And my term for the belief that there is no god is anti-theism or strong atheist. That's what Dawkins is, and to a lesser extent, I am too. But at the same time, that's going by belief as defined by the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. (Also from Wikipedia).
Need me to elucidate anything else SER? 😛
Elucidate? Is that what you call this? Lol
Maybe I got confused with all this talk of people being born as atheists, or agnostics really being atheists… never heard this stuff before.
For those who have bothered to consider the question, why can't we just believe in god (religious), believe there is no god (atheist), or be open-minded as to whether or not (agnostic)? Sounds like your argument is more anthropology than logic anyhow.
As to a definition of religion, I'll leave that to someone religious.
Maybe I got confused with all this talk of people being born as atheists, or agnostics really being atheists… never heard this stuff before.
For those who have bothered to consider the question, why can't we just believe in god (religious), believe there is no god (atheist), or be open-minded as to whether or not (agnostic)? Sounds like your argument is more anthropology than logic anyhow.
As to a definition of religion, I'll leave that to someone religious.
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Where was the question?
What do you mean "why can't we just..."? Isn't that what happens anyway? Or are you referring to the missionaries who attempt to convert?
If you are, then I don't think this thread could even be considered a means to conversion - who would change their life philosophy based on what a football fan has to say anyway! 🙂
Codewana be careful about taking things too literally. I mean, look what happened to Rex.
Alas I see my warnings have come too late 😀
Yes I too am a devotee. Praise be to Gronk.clontaago said:
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
