quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Where are you getting this information? This is like arguing over your favourite colour with someone.

The information is right in the argument you were advancing in that your argument presupposed the existence of a god... if one accepts that there is a god then one must accept that said god is the creator of all things; subsequently, it is said god's world. That said, you're right, there is nothing to be gained by furthering this particular discussion.

quote:

I made no such error - your response was to my question about the course of somebody's personal faith - how it can strengthen, how it can weaken - and I replied in turn with a comment on faith.

I've reviewed the tape and concede that it was, in fact, I who muddled the terms, my apologies.

quote:

But you are absolutely right

that's pretty much a given :P

{QUOTE]in that religion and faith can be two very seperate things - and this is one of the largest objections I have to religion. The expressionistic rituals you describe seemingly give a "name" to God - he's this religion, she's part of that religion, etc. This is the social dynamic clearly confirmational in people and no doubt "beneficial" so far as they are concerned. But that is a steady notion - that people paicipate in things that they like. Faith can wax and wane with an individual though, and if this affects the frequency of religious practice and ceremony, then they are not entirely different concepts.[/QUOTE]

Granted, faith and religion are closely related; however, not inextricably linked and the strength of one's faith may influence the manner in which they practice a religion. The point I was trying to make was that the benefit from religion is not dependent on faith... one could continue to have faith and value said faith but abandon religion due to insufficient benefits. The opposite if also true; one could lose faith but continue to practice a religion. Generally, I prefer to think of faith as something that a person develops while religion is a choice that they make... although that is an admittedly clumsy and simplified manner of looking at the two.

quote:

I dunno, I just went for the fritters and the girls, so fuck your benefits.

Dude... you got fritters? Cheap fuckin' church only gives me stale crackers and bad wine.... why didn't Jesus serve something better... like chocolate milk and pie... "Jesus took the pie and sliced it, he handed it to his disciples and said 'take this pie and eat it, this is the pie of my body which will be given up for you.' When supper was ended he took the cup and said 'this is the chocolate milk of my blood'..."

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Moral loves his skin flakes! Tee-hee!

and my shit... I create that too!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Dude... you got fritters? Cheap fuckin' church only gives me stale crackers and bad wine.... why didn't Jesus serve something better... like chocolate milk and pie... "Jesus took the pie and sliced it, he handed it to his disciples and said 'take this pie and eat it, this is the pie of my body which will be given up for you.' When supper was ended he took the cup and said 'this is the chocolate milk of my blood'..."

Yeah, we got fritters and Pepsi for communion. American Jesus had a considerably higher cholesterol, but at least he was real!

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Your statement was that priests are not authorities on anything, that statement is simply false. What weight you give to the importance of their expertise is up to you. I would be incline to agree that medical doctors can back their opinions up with empirical evidence, which is more universally convincing then is theology, reason, or rhetoric.... so if you measure weight by what is most compelling then sure, I agree. Now, if by weight you mean importance then I'm not sure I can agree with you, as far more people will have need for spiritual guidance/advice throughout their lives then will have need for cardiac surgery.

actually, i said they were experts in the "unknowable"

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Nigga please... whether god actually exists or not billions of people have a "relationship" with what they perceive to be god that is very real if one party of that relationship is in part or in whole a product of their own making. You have a relationship with your ego; however, it is not real. I would argue that all relationships are with things or people are, at very least, in part relationships with parties that are not real as we actually only know our perception of the other party involved. What is real is the relationship, even if one or even both of the parties involved are not.

so what you're saying is that a person's relationship with god could be no different than a schizophrenic's relationship with the voices? well, at least we agree on something

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What constitutes "proof"? There are those that would contend global warming cannot be proven - is it a myth then as well, since it is not universally irrefutable? What about abstract concepts like "culture" and "identity" - can you show me what it is to be Catalan?

are you really comparing the evidence for culture or global warming with the evidence of god?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN actually, i said they were experts in the "unknowable"

straight from Pat Condell's mouth. ftw

quote:

Originally posted by D-res straight from Pat Condell's mouth. ftw

pat rocks my world!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN actually, i said they were experts in the "unknowable"

And I refuted that... if nothing else they are experts in man's relationship with a conceptualized god, which is knowable even if one cannot establish whether or not god(s) exist.

quote:

so what you're saying is that a person's relationship with god could be no different than a schizophrenic's relationship with the voices? well, at least we agree on something

Not at all. What I'm saying is that a person's relationship with god is no different then relationships between people in that it's a relationship with a perception rather then with a definite and genuine article. Whether there is or is not a god(s) my "relationship" with same is really a relationship with what I believe god to be; much the same as my relationship with my wife is really a relationship with the person I believe her to be, and my relationship with you is really just with the person I believe you to be.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not at all. What I'm saying is that a person's relationship with god is no different then relationships between people in that it's a relationship with a perception rather then with a definite and genuine article. Whether there is or is not a god(s) my "relationship" with same is really a relationship with what I believe god to be; much the same as my relationship with my wife is really a relationship with the person I believe her to be, and my relationship with you is really just with the person I believe you to be.

I don't understand how this goes against the claim that this relationship is different than a dellusionary schizophrenic, since you perceive relationships on what you beleive them to be-and not neccessarily what they are objectively.

this very wording of not seeing people as genuine articles, and seeing the person you believe them to be is fine in the majority of cases, but when mental illness is present it becomes a slippery slope-since the sufferer sincerely beleives in his psychosis.

and I am not degrading your relationship with the higher power, just looking at the relationship through a modern psychiatric lense(which has its fair share of issues)

Last edited by Damerchi on Apr-03-2009 at 18:55

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi I don't understand how this goes against the claim that this relationship in different than a dellusionary schizophrenic, since you perceive relationships on what you beleive them to be-and not neccessarily what they are objectively. this very wording of not seeing people as genuine articles, and seeing the person you believe them to be is fine in the majority of cases, but when mental illness is present it becomes a slippery slope-since the sufferer sincerely beleives in his psychosis. and I am not degrading your relationship with the higher power, just looking at the relationship through a modern psychiatric lense(which has its fair share of issues)

Perhaps I was not clear enough... ALL relationships are with the perception of something rather then the reality of it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard And I refuted that... if nothing else they are experts in man's relationship with a conceptualized god, which is knowable even if one cannot establish whether or not god(s) exist.

but that's like saying that an alchemist is an expert in alchemy. um, so what? if you can't prove, or even test, that 'man's relationship with god' is anything more than 'man's superstition with himself' then being an expert in that field doesn't raise him above an astrologist, let alone the laziest scientists, sociologists
much religious doctrine/belief is lagging far behind what is self-evidently good and real that i struggle to care what they think about anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not at all. What I'm saying is that a person's relationship with god is no different then relationships between people in that it's a relationship with a perception rather then with a definite and genuine article.

are you saying that belief in god is the same thing as someone who stalks madonna (if you'll pardon the pun) thinking they have a relationship with her? are you saying that all beliefs regarding relationships are equal and valid?

the funny part is that the stalker will get studied by a mental health professional, whereas the the religious person can go on studying and becoming a pre-eminent expert in the equally tangible relationship

that is of course if you're forced to accept that the stalker analogy holds, and im curious to see what you think coz you always have such a great way of stomping me down when i think i have you

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Whether there is or is not a god(s) my "relationship" with same is really a relationship with what I believe god to be; much the same as my relationship with my wife is really a relationship with the person I believe her to be, and my relationship with you is really just with the person I believe you to be.

but is it not the same thing? the other relationships are based upon substantive interactions that can be verified to some degree by other people. if there is no god or if he is nothing like what you believe, what you're essentially saying is you're having a relationship with own imagination. i doubt you would characterise the entire relationship you have with your wife and spawn in that fashion.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but that's like saying that an alchemist is an expert in alchemy. um, so what? if you can't prove, or even test, that 'man's relationship with god' is anything more than 'man's superstition with himself' then being an expert in that field doesn't raise him above an astrologist, let alone the laziest scientists, sociologists much religious doctrine/belief is lagging far behind what is self-evidently good and real that i struggle to care what they think about anything.

You just don't understand, do you? Whether or not there is a god is immaterial to the fact that humans have understood themselves to have a relationship with god, this has created an entire history and shaped our entire world; subsequently, that which man views as his relationship with this perceived god (real or not) is real, is valid, is knowable, is significant.

quote:

are you saying that belief in god is the same thing as someone who stalks madonna (if you'll pardon the pun) thinking they have a relationship with her? are you saying that all beliefs regarding relationships are equal and valid? the funny part is that the stalker will get studied by a mental health professional, whereas the the religious person can go on studying and becoming a pre-eminent expert in the equally tangible relationship

You keep trying to get me to suggest faith is a delusion, I don't blame you, I'd do the same in your position; however, you what you're really doing is showing that you don't understand what I'm saying or you simply don't care. What I have said and will continue to say is that ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE WITH PERCEIVED ARTICLES, NOT GENUINE ONES. One can only have a relationship with what they believe a person/thing to be because the actual person/thing is unknowable.

quote:

the other relationships are based upon substantive interactions that can be verified to some degree by other people.

Incorrect... relationships are based on one's reflections upon interactions.

quote:

if there is no god or if he is nothing like what you believe, what you're essentially saying is you're having a relationship with own perception.

fixed

quote:

i doubt you would characterise the entire relationship you have with your wife and spawn in that fashion.

Actually, I would. I have no idea what my wife or daughter are thinking, what they believe, essentially - who they are. All I know is the personas they present to me.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

I like this. We need more stupid people for me to rule over.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix