Religious people: what is your level of observance? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Your level of observance?
Non-practicing/secular form of religion 20 43.48%
A little observant 3 6.52%
Middle-of-the-road observance 11 23.91%
Strict adherence to religious rules 4 8.70%
Don't know 8 17.39%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-29-2011, 07:55 PM   #1 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 181
Default

Yeah but the thing is I then actually answered the argument and pointed out why it was a strawman, and what my actual opinion on it was.

Quote:
But you cant form a frickin philosophy around not believing in something; you form it around believing in something ELSE, or you dont form anything, its as simple as that.
What's your resposne to that cos atheism imo is about forming a philosophy around not believing in something. Either I'm ill-formed or I'm right
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 08:13 PM   #2 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
Yeah but the thing is I then actually answered the argument and pointed out why it was a strawman, and what my actual opinion on it was.
I already did that and you simply ignored my response and continued with the strawmen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
What's your resposne to that cos atheism imo is about forming a philosophy around not believing in something. Either I'm ill-formed or I'm right
Heh. You're not ill-formed, you're ill-informed. Atheism isn't a philosophy, all it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Atheists have a variety of different philosophies, some are even members of religions even though they don't believe in the supernatural components.
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 09:45 AM   #3 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I already did that and you simply ignored my response and continued with the strawmen.


Heh. You're not ill-formed, you're ill-informed. Atheism isn't a philosophy, all it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Atheists have a variety of different philosophies, some are even members of religions even though they don't believe in the supernatural components.
Thats irrelevant. If you didn't know what I meant you wouldnt have been able to correct it. Grammar and spelling is not really the issue here.

If they are a part of religion, then they're not atheist. Atheist = a self-proclaimed aversion to religion.

Psychologically, to be asocial is to decide to withdraw from social matters.

Biologically, to be asexual is to have a biological construction which does not require you to have sex in order to reproduce.

and so on.

Theologically, atheism is the decided rejection of theism.

It doesnt mean just not beliving.

It doesnt mean not beliving in the supernatural

It doesn't mean not beliving in God.

It means the rejection and dispute of theism. Atheists believe theism is unneccessary to the Human Condition in absolute.

Furthermore, if you won't accept the possibility of the supposed impossible, if you won't accept that there's more to life than you currently know, then you can't be a part of any religion. Can't is not really the word - I mean it more in the sense that there's no reason for you to be.

If there is no purpose to Humanity then I have no interest in Humanity.


But before you play the "without your religion you'd be a psycho killer" card, allow me to explain.

There is a purpose to Humanity, because we exist. Thus, we maintain that existence, and seek to understand it further. From that, we'll attain further purpose.

If I didn't believe THAT, then yes, I would be a psycho killer. Arguably, though, if it wasn't true I wouldnt exist or be here in the first place, so how would I kill anyone?

But you dont have to be religious to believe that. All I'm saying is religion is a useful component of such an idea.

You could decide to not follow a specific religion, but still assist to maintain Humanity and seek that purpose. All that would be different is the "name" and affiliation though, which is irrelevant in the end, you'd be doing the same things, with the exception of the corrupted religious and non-religious alike. Righteousness is Universal. What works works. What doesnt, doesnt.

But I don't really see how making yourself an enemy of religion helps. Because in essence, if what we're all doing truly works, it wont matter if we learnt it from a book or from experience. All that'll matter is whats done. Why should entire sources of input be written off just because you cant verify where they came from? Why does it matter where they came from? Why does it matter if Christ was sent by God or not? Why does it matter if Moses was physically handed the ten commandments in stone? Why does it matter if Muhammed was led to the mountains by a literal burning bush?

What matters is that we know of Christ and what matters is the message he left behind. What matters is that Moses gave us the ten commandments. What matters is that Muhammed was led to the mountain. God rest their souls.

What matters is what was said and done, because they hold very important messages, regardless of where they came from.

What matters is whatever larger framework we may be a part of.

How can you write off the possibility that they came from a higher power, a greater conciousness?

Why do you doubt the intention of that higher power, when the ten commandments have been shown very clearly to be functional and in the best interests of Humanity?

I'm not saying we shouldnt question, we should always question things.

it justs seems ignorant to me for someone to say "I am atheist, your rules dont apply to me" When we're not talking about rules of society. We're talking about rules of the Unvierse. If you're agravity will it stop affecting you? Religion is about understanding those laws of the Universe and then using our concious minds to maintain and apply them as best as possible to our own manmade social structures.

It doesnt matter who says them, it matters what's said and our understanding of whats said.

It's not who said it. It's what's said.

Last edited by crukster; 03-30-2011 at 09:56 AM.
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:11 AM   #4 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
Theologically, atheism is the decided rejection of theism.

It doesnt mean just not beliving.

It doesnt mean not beliving in the supernatural

It doesn't mean not beliving in God.

It means the rejection and dispute of theism. Atheists believe theism is unneccessary to the Human Condition in absolute.
This is fundamentally incorrect. Suppose that, somewhere in the world, there is a small group of people that worship a tiny golden teapot in the sky. We could call them teapotists. Does it take someone who "rejects and disputes" the existence of this tiny golden teapot to be labeled as a "ateapotist"? No, of course not. Most people probably aren't aware that such an epistemic absurdity is considered to exist. Therefore, they lack belief in this teapot, therefore, they are ateapotists by default.

As Richard Dawkins said, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:14 AM   #5 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
This is fundamentally incorrect. Suppose that, somewhere in the world, there is a small group of people that worship a tiny golden teapot in the sky. We could call them teapotists. Does it take someone who "rejects and disputes" the existence of this tiny golden teapot to be labeled as a "ateapotist"? No, of course not. Most people probably aren't aware that such an epistemic absurdity is considered to exist. Therefore, they lack belief in this teapot, therefore, they are ateapotists by default.

As Richard Dawkins said, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
No actually, I am not an ateapotist. If I was interested in the belief enough, I would learn about it, ask about, understand where it originates from. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't believe it. I'm not an "ateapotist" by default, I am just simply not a teapotist.

Either I follow the belief and I decide to call myself a Teapotist. Or I don't, and I don't.
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 01:25 PM   #6 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
No actually, I am not an ateapotist. If I was interested in the belief enough, I would learn about it, ask about, understand where it originates from. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't believe it. I'm not an "ateapotist" by default, I am just simply not a teapotist.

Either I follow the belief and I decide to call myself a Teapotist. Or I don't, and I don't.
Okay then, what do you call people who aren't interested in deities enough to learn and ask about them? What do you call people who don't form beliefs about deities?
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:22 AM   #7 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
Thats irrelevant. If you didn't know what I meant you wouldnt have been able to correct it. Grammar and spelling is not really the issue here.

If they are a part of religion, then they're not atheist. Atheist = a self-proclaimed aversion to religion.

Psychologically, to be asocial is to decide to withdraw from social matters.

Biologically, to be asexual is to have a biological construction which does not require you to have sex in order to reproduce.

and so on.

Theologically, atheism is the decided rejection of theism.

It doesnt mean just not beliving.

It doesnt mean not beliving in the supernatural

It doesn't mean not beliving in God.

It means the rejection and dispute of theism. Atheists believe theism is unneccessary to the Human Condition in absolute.

Furthermore, if you won't accept the possibility of the supposed impossible, if you won't accept that there's more to life than you currently know, then you can't be a part of any religion. Can't is not really the word - I mean it more in the sense that there's no reason for you to be.

If there is no purpose to Humanity then I have no interest in Humanity.


But before you play the "without your religion you'd be a psycho killer" card, allow me to explain.

There is a purpose to Humanity, because we exist. Thus, we maintain that existence, and seek to understand it further. From that, we'll attain further purpose.

If I didn't believe THAT, then yes, I would be a psycho killer. Arguably, though, if it wasn't true I wouldnt exist or be here in the first place, so how would I kill anyone?

But you dont have to be religious to believe that. All I'm saying is religion is a useful component of such an idea.

You could decide to not follow a specific religion, but still assist to maintain Humanity and seek that purpose. All that would be different is the "name" and affiliation though, which is irrelevant in the end, you'd be doing the same things, with the exception of the corrupted religious and non-religious alike. Righteousness is Universal. What works works. What doesnt, doesnt.

But I don't really see how making yourself an enemy of religion helps. Because in essence, if what we're all doing truly works, it wont matter if we learnt it from a book or from experience. All that'll matter is whats done. Why should entire sources of input be written off just because you cant verify where they came from? Why does it matter where they came from? Why does it matter if Christ was sent by God or not? Why does it matter if Moses was physically handed the ten commandments in stone? Why does it matter if Muhammed was led to the mountains by a literal burning bush?

What matters is that we know of Christ and what matters is the message he left behind. What matters is that Moses gave us the ten commandments. What matters is that Muhammed was led to the mountain. God rest their souls.

What matters is what was said and done, because they hold very important messages, regardless of where they came from.

What matters is whatever larger framework we may be a part of.

How can you write off the possibility that they came from a higher power, a greater conciousness?

Why do you doubt the intention of that higher power, when the ten commandments have been shown very clearly to be functional and in the best interests of Humanity?

I'm not saying we shouldnt question, we should always question things.

it justs seems ignorant to me for someone to say "I am atheist, your rules dont apply to me" When we're not talking about rules of society. We're talking about rules of the Unvierse. If you're agravity will it stop affecting you? Religion is about understanding those laws of the Universe and then using our concious minds to maintain and apply them as best as possible to our own manmade social structures.

It doesnt matter who says them, it matters what's said and our understanding of whats said.

It's not who said it. It's what's said.
I see no reason to continue responding to you when you clearly aren't even bothering to read my posts. Hopefully at some point something will click with you and you'll make some kind of effort at understanding things before jumping to all these wild conclusions about them.
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:24 AM   #8 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 181
Default

It already clicked. I didn't like the sound.

No-one's under any obligation to reply, all the best to you man. I'm mature enough to be able to shake hands and go our separate ways.
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:39 AM   #9 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
It already clicked. I didn't like the sound.
You don't like the sound of trying to understand where others are coming from. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:47 PM   #10 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
You don't like the sound of trying to understand where others are coming from. Got it. I'll keep that in mind.
No, not all, I mean I don't like the way atheism clicked.

You're right Geddy I apologise. If you wanna debate it another time I'm cool with that Janszoon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
Okay then, what do you call people who aren't interested in deities enough to learn and ask about them? What do you call people who don't form beliefs about deities?

Nuffin'. *shrug*

In relation to religion anyway. In general, just Human. Same as everyone else.

Last edited by crukster; 03-30-2011 at 03:56 PM.
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.