The Belief Spectrum - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Belief Spectrum
Pages (12): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

Posted by enydo on May-12-2009 00:01:

This may be a really dumb question, but truth of what exactly?

Of nature and our existence within it?

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on May-12-2009 00:13:

Poop.

Posted by winston on May-12-2009 00:22:

you lost me at god

if it has a label, it doesn't work

Posted by daft_max on May-12-2009 05:52:

quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
because i think that is what life is about

ah, one of those life has to have a meaning folks.

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-12-2009 11:33:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
If that were the case, why are you banging on about "truth"?

I think the point he's trying to make is that truth does exist, we just haven't found it. I get the impression that Nefardec's view on the nature of god is more akin to the Hindu concept of Brahman then it is to any of the other great religions.... Brahman being the "ultimate reality" of which everything is part.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-12-2009 11:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think the point he's trying to make is that truth does exist, we just haven't found it. I get the impression that Nefardec's view on the nature of god is more akin to the Hindu concept of Brahman then it is to any of the other great religions.... Brahman being the "ultimate reality" of which everything is part.

well, i think its rather obvious that truth exists, wouldn't you agree? i always considered truth a pre-requisite for existence. im just not a fan of all the flowery new-age "metaphors and approximations" i guess; i mean, its a bit weird to talk about such whilst making comments like this:

quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
hence 'truly spiritual'

people who buy into and spread any dogma are deluded imo, and spiritual for me means 'lover of ultimate truth'.

if everything is only an approximation, then how can one be considered "truly spiritual" or not?

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-12-2009 11:39:

quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
the teachings of christ say to be like christ - the message is that every person should strive to be a mystic, to experience god directly for himself, within himself.

More the latter then the former... the teachings of Jesus suggest that we are all divine or perhaps part of the divine. Additionally, he taught that we can experience our divinity most fully in the service of others.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-12-2009 11:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Additionally, he taught that we can experience our divinity most fully in the service of others.

that's strange, because i experience the divine most often by servicing myself!

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-12-2009 11:51:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, i think its rather obvious that truth exists, wouldn't you agree? i always considered truth a pre-requisite for existence. im just not a fan of all the flowery new-age "metaphors and approximations" i guess; i mean, its a bit weird to talk about such whilst making comments like this:

if everything is only an approximation, then how can one be considered "truly spiritual" or not?

I have to agree that truth does exist if for no other reason that the universe is governed by logic and arguing that truth does not exist is illogical. I would also agree that if one concedes that we do not know the truth then no one can be "truly" anything. That said I think we got into a bit of a diction problem here... my presumption is that the use of the word truly in "truly spiritual" was probably intended to refer to motives rather then validity; thus, I read "truly spiritual" as a person being interested in discovering truth as opposed to pleasing god in hopes of gaining god's favor.

Posted by elFreak on May-12-2009 11:51:

When i was younger and more "controversial" (see: immature), i would make it a point to go out of my way to try and debunk anyone's personal beliefs, simply because I thought that needing absolute proof to be able to believe in something was essential. The older I get, the more i have seemed to move away from this. I am not a pious man by any means, but the bottom line to me is that i see how religion makes some people happy, therefore it can not be that bad. Everyone needs something to believe in, and this line of thought does not only apply to religion. Let people that are happy be happy imo.

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-12-2009 11:51:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's strange, because i experience the divine most often by servicing myself!

Well played.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on May-12-2009 12:00:

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-12-2009 12:02:

quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
Everyone needs something to believe in, and this line of thought does not only apply to religion. Let people that are happy be happy imo.

"What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!"
--Nietzsche (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Posted by elFreak on May-12-2009 12:05:

"burn baby burn, disco inferno!"
-adolf hitler.

Posted by Halcyon+On+On on May-12-2009 15:18:

quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
When i was younger and more "controversial" (see: immature), i would make it a point to go out of my way to try and debunk anyone's personal beliefs, simply because I thought that needing absolute proof to be able to believe in something was essential. The older I get, the more i have seemed to move away from this. I am not a pious man by any means, but the bottom line to me is that i see how religion makes some people happy, therefore it can not be that bad. Everyone needs something to believe in, and this line of thought does not only apply to religion. Let people that are happy be happy imo.

Live and let live is all well and good, but we do not live in a world that facilitates the respect and fairness that such a saying implies.

Personal beliefs are one thing, but there are oodles of people who fervently believe in a vengeful and omnipotent God, and think that just because their beliefs cover both a broad range of political spectrums and are empowered by the right of social occupancy, everyone should live like they do; because really - who are all these heathens to question the sovereignty of whichever one and true God has been farted into existence for the time being?

I would be more than happy to let these people be, if only their votes were not just as valuable as mine.

Posted by gehzumteufel on May-12-2009 15:26:

Posted by Halcyon+On+On on May-12-2009 15:30:

Defense of one's beliefs is sort of dicey though - I mean, does it seem fair to expect people to defend something like religion when the most standard of argumentative terms require either a logical or scientific explanation? That's like trying to write a sentence entirely in numbers, rather than letters; there is something entirely lost in translation or otherwise left out, as they are two different systems for expression.

Posted by elFreak on May-12-2009 15:35:

quote:
Originally posted by gehzumteufel
While I generally follow this thought, people should also be able to defend what they believe. If you can't, then why do you believe? To each their own on being religious or not, but if you can't defend what you believe, whether you have all the answers or not, is just ridiculous.

why do people need to defend their beliefs unless they are utterly insecure and feel that their way is the only possible way?

the way you phrased that is pretty silly considering that your grandparents had gold stars put on them for similar reasons.

Posted by Halcyon+On+On on May-12-2009 15:44:

Well Nazi Germany was an excellent case of what happens when you let a religious doctrine control your state utterly. True, it began as a political party, but the inner circle undoubtedly had a religious agenda.

Posted by elFreak on May-12-2009 15:47:

german neo paganism.

Posted by gehzumteufel on May-12-2009 16:07:

quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
why do people need to defend their beliefs unless they are utterly insecure and feel that their way is the only possible way?

the way you phrased that is pretty silly considering that your grandparents had gold stars put on them for similar reasons.

In a general sense they don't need to defend them, but if they are to get into more intellectual conversations on those subjects, and they are attempting to have any input on the subject, they need to be able to defend what they believe.

And no, they didn't, that I am aware of. Maybe some relatives that I don't know I have, but at this point, I am unaware of any. They fled Tsarist Russia.

Posted by Halcyon+On+On on May-12-2009 16:11:

If I were a rich ma-an, a yubba dubba bububdjbaks lwef kljasfsdfusdjf,l l l;sdkfj yebba-deeba-dayyy

Posted by elFreak on May-12-2009 16:18:

the gold star comment was a generalization of people of your faith, not your actual grandparents.

that being said, as far as intellectual convos go, i covered that part in my last post.

people who engage in topics regarding faith with those who are not "believers" as they are, tend to do it more for reasons of wanting to "convert people to the flock" (aka utterly insecure and the only possible way) than for any actual intellectual purposes.

faith is a system of beliefs and is completely unrelated to being a system of facts. The same can be applied as much to atheists/agnostics as it can be applied to any form of faith.

I am not even a religious person, it is only when i saw how faith has helped people i know as a coping mechanism to help with loss or any other tribulations they might be going through that made me lighten up on the "my way is better" bullshit.

that being said http://www.venganza.org/ till the day that i die, and if you don't believe me you are wrong.

Posted by gehzumteufel on May-12-2009 16:24:

quote:
Originally posted by elFreak
people who engage in topics regarding faith with those who are not "believers" as they are, tend to do it more for reasons of wanting to "convert people to the flock" (aka utterly insecure and the only possible way) than for any actual intellectual purposes.

See, but this isn't what I was referring to. When I get in these types of conversations, I like to understand why someone believes. I don't try to convert them. I may challenge what they believe, but only in a manner in which to understand their beliefs. Not to say, "Hey motherfucker, I am right, and you're wrong." I thoroughly enjoy understanding the reasoning behind things, whether it be someones faith or the reason there is a number tattooed on their arm.

Posted by Meat187 on May-12-2009 16:27:

This thread is getting too serious, so let me direct your attention once again to this:

quote:
Originally posted by Ridexer
What is god?

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
The name of Ygrene's dog.

Pages (12): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »