4 of 13
4
In search of WILLPOWER—I am here to inquire: Is it a real power?
Posted: 28 July 2012 03:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
Occam. - 28 July 2012 12:14 PM

... George, you have to be careful about diagnoses.  One has to recognize differential symptoms between insanity and senility.  LOL Occam

Also, Occam, if the goal is to scare away, or make feel unwelcome, people who may have a religion-based opinion this is a good way to do it. Which prompts me to ask: Am I the only one here who writes from what I think of as a moderate-Christian point of view?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4756
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 28 July 2012 03:58 PM

Am I the only one here who writes from what I think of as a moderate-Christian point of view?

Pretty much. Moderate Christians seem to pop in around here every few months, but seldom stay long.

These forums are dedicated to ”...an evidence-based, scientific outlook and humanist values.” This is taken from the Statement of Purpose from the Forum Rules. There is no evidence to support belief in supernatural entities such as souls and there is no rational basis for believing in a god, no matter what name you choose to give the concept.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

While this forum covers a wide range of topics and has members with a fairly wide range of opinions, beliefs, and ideologies, we are almost all, to some degree, non-theists.  As such, many of us are either not interested in participating in theological discussions or tend to discount their seriousness or even validity.

Also, you must remember that as far as senility goes, you and I are the same age, 81.  smile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
Occam. - 28 July 2012 04:27 PM

... Also, you must remember that as far as senility goes, you and I are the same age, 81.  smile

Occam

Occam, welcome to the octogenarian—what do demographers call us? Community? Now, 82, with a wife who turned 83 in June, I always boast that I am supported by an older woman. grin 

...  not interested in participating in theological discussions or tend to discount their seriousness or even validity.

Not interested in theology? Since the vast majority of this globe is “theological”, in one way or another, should we not respectfully inquire as to how this came to be, eh?

Are there theologies that are: outright evil; good or benign; dumb; childlike and childish theology—whatever?  IMHO, there are many theologies. LET’S INQUIRE! Maybe we can help those—who I agree need it—who would like to be FREE to think for themselves.

PHILANTHROPIST, 79, NOW A SUPPORTER OF THE WORK OF THE FAMILY LIFE FOUNDATIONhttp://www.flfcanada.com
A benign theology? Here is a current example. In the following 10 minute video, Dave Smith, Ottawa, Canada, a simple believer—I am not sure in what faith he was raised—mentions the word “god” once. But look at what this almost octogenarian has done with this simple theology. The FLF has invited Dave to Toronto—and he is coming:

http://www.addictionfreeyouth.org/  Brief messages—from Dave Smith and a student from Kirkland Lake, which is an area where there are too many addicted youth—many suicides—and adults. Years ago, I spent a year in the north (Labrador) and first hand saw the problem. Without the church there, there would have been no school and zero other programs.

===========================

[ Edited: 29 July 2012 10:34 AM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4756
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 29 July 2012 07:10 AM

Not interested in theology? Since the vast majority of this globe are “theological” in one way or another, should we not respectfully inquire as to how come this is so? Are there such theologies as: evil theology; good theology; dumb theology; childlike and childish theology?  I think there are. LET’S INQUIRE! Maybe we can help those who I agree need it, and would like to be FREE, if possible, thinkers

I agree we should study why people are religious. The proper field for that is psychology, not theology. Theology is the study of something which does not exist, making it a supreme waste of time.

“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.” Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics

Russell’s quote accurately summarizes my opinion about theology and theologians, and may help you understand the resistance and even hostility you have encountered here.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 09:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
RevLGKing - 28 July 2012 03:58 PM

Which prompts me to ask: Am I the only one here who writes from what I think of as a moderate-Christian point of view?

This is not a blog. People come here to discuss things, including religion, not to “write.” You said already more than once that you are not interested in a debate, which seems to translate to “not interested in supporting what I am saying with evidence.” “Art of speaking” may be sufficient for a monologue from the pulpit, but here it takes a bit more for the rest of us to take you seriously.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5944
Joined  2006-12-20

Occam,

Occam. - 26 July 2012 11:18 PM

BTW,my World Book D tells me that determinism is the doctrine that all events are determined by antecedent causes, agreed?

Correct. 

Would I be justified in saying: Don’t blame me, folks, it is not my fault. Blame my heredity and my environment!

  No, because your heredity and environment are not separate from you.  They are what makes up you, so you are responsible for your actions. 

Even if this were true, which of course it isn’t, as your external environment isn’t you, one is still left wondering how you imagine you get from the premise to the conclusion.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30

George - 29 July 2012 09:30 AM, in response to my question, which I asked 28 July 2012 03:58 PM: 

Am I the only one here who writes from what I think of as a moderate-Christian point of view? Here I add: I am actually a very moderate and even a Progressive thinker. See http://progressivechristianity.ca/prc/?page_id=6 

You responded

This is not a blog. People come here to discuss things, including religion, not to “write.”

Then I will gladly read, with eyes and mind open, what you write about things leaving me out of the text. Have I ever discussed you?

You said already more than once that you are not interested in a debate, which seems to translate to “not interested in supporting what I am saying with evidence.”

Go ahead, present what evidence you have, and for what subjects.

BTW, I am not opposed to debating. But I like to use dialogue as a way of getting information about who we are, and what we stand for, before trying to come to any conclusion. And I realize that there is a difference between writing and speaking. And you say “This is not a blog”. Does this mean you want a limit on the number of lines to each post. If so, I am not opposed. Perhaps, for any interested, we could give a link to a blog.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Stephen, please don’t try to drag the determinism/free-will debate into this thread.  My statement was only of my opinion and my basis for my other statements.  I know you have different views than I do.  I stated mine it the Philosophy thread over a hundred pages ago and responses were made there.  They should stay there, not contaminate this thread on a different subject with off-topic posts.

Occam  

(Note that I’m saying this as a member, not as a moderator.)

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
RevLGKing - 27 July 2012 09:05 PM

=======================
What if the government or anyone else could read your mind? Wait for it .. the potential is fast approaching. We are moving from the sci-fi on the silver screen to the reality on the MRI machine. The research and results are so advanced that at least one ethicist is already calling for protected privacy zones in our skulls.

Part Two of The Current

Mind Reading Technology

Over the years, Hollywood has had a lot of fun imagining what the world would be like if we could peer into each others’ brains and read each others’ thoughts. But now new research is showing that we are able to interpret brain activity accurately and reliably enough, that the idea of mind-reading doesn’t seem nearly as far fetched as it used to.

The Current’s Gord Westmacott has been looking into some of the research and he joined Anna Maria to tell us us more.

Here is the podcast:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/01/04/mind-reading-technology/

Well, yeah. That podcast sure took a while to get around to telling me what they were going to talk about, though. :\ I don’t think that podcast is the best thought-out of podcasts that I’ve heard. For starters, I don’t understand why they decided to use Minority Report as an example of what MRIs do not do. No one thinks that MRIs allow people to suddenly be prescient.

[ Edited: 29 July 2012 04:09 PM by TromboneAndrew ]
 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Darron’s point is well taken.  The study of religion fits in the fields of psychology, anthropology and sociology.  Theology is just an overview of a basis for the various religions. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
Occam. - 29 July 2012 05:57 PM

Darron’s point is well taken.  The study of religion fits in the fields of psychology, anthropology and sociology.  Theology is just an overview of a basis for the various religions.  Occam

“Just an overview”? Surely, even an overview is of some value? Agree? Or disagree?

Without any expectancy that anyone at CFI will agree with my opinion, here it is:

THEOLOGY IS: The Mother of All ...ologies.
It is also my opinion that most posters at CFI seem to feel:

All theologies are either useless, or bad. Individuals, communities and nations who have been indoctrinated to believe in—naively and/or otherwise—and practice such theologies are the ones who really cause much of the world’s pain and suffering which they inflict on themselves, and the rest of society.

Believe it or not, I agree that most theologies are useless and/or bad and ought to be exposed as such. And I am thankful to forums like CFI for not totally ignoring bad theologies, philosophies, junk science and the like, and for bringing them to the light where they can be exposed and explored for what they are—false and a danger to the whole of society.

WHAT ABOUT TECHNOLOGIES AND ART?
BTW, is there a thread about junk technologies and junk art? However, I do not agree that the “Mother of all ologies” is all useless and bad. After all, even a bad example serves the purpose of being a bad example.

Question: So now, what ought we to do with “Mother”? Do we just sit and wait for a call—from whom—telling us of her death?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 02:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I’m sure there are cookbooks considering the values of and the various ways of preparing sea slugs.  I have never tried a sea slug, no matter what preparation was used.  Those who enjoy that cuisine can study the different theories of cooking and eating them.  I have no interest in reading such cookbooks.

Similarly, I’m sure those who believe in one or more gods can enjoy studying theology.  I have no interest, so it would be a waste of my valuable time to spend studying or discussing theology.

While I recognize that the various aspects of religions have influenced art, literature, and music greatly over the years, I don’t care about those connections.  If I can enjoy the art, literature, or music by itself, fine, but I don’t need to bother with the theological connections.  Bach wrote great music.  Suffice it to recognize that.  The fact that he wrote much of it for church services is of no consequence or interest to me.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 09:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30

Let me respectfully assure all at CFI that unitheism is about oneness, not about “one or more gods”. grin

THE WORK OF WILLIAM A. TILLER
A materials scientist who writes about our oneness with all that is
http://www.tiller.org/

For the last four hundred years, an unstated assumption of science is that human intention cannot affect what we call “physical reality.”

Our experimental research of the past decade shows that, for today’s world and under the right conditions, this assumption is no longer correct.

We humans are much more than we think we are and Psychoenergetic Science continues to expand the proof of it.


- William A. Tiller

William A. Tiller, Ph.D. is a professor emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University. He is also the author of Science and Human Transformation, a book on esoteric concepts such as subtle energies, beyond the four fundamental forces, which he believes act in concert with human consciousness. Tiller appeared in the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?. [Wiki.]

[ Edited: 30 July 2012 09:19 PM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4756
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 30 July 2012 09:12 PM

Let me respectfully assure all at CFI that unitheism is about oneness, not about “one or more gods”. grin

THE WORK OF WILLIAM A. TILLER
A materials scientist who writes about our oneness with all that is
http://www.tiller.org/

William Tiller’s work is New Age pseudoscientific psychobabble, which means it fits right in with theology as they are both divorced from reality.

From Wikipedia

William A. Tiller, Ph.D. is a professor emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University[1]. He is also the author of Science and Human Transformation, a book on esoteric concepts such as subtle energies, beyond the four fundamental forces, which he believes act in concert with human consciousness. Tiller appeared in the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?.

That film is one of the worst examples of pseudoscientific thinking extant. Good reverend, you need to get your head out of the clouds and study some real science. This is perfect example of why Bertrand Russell considered theists “feeble and a little contemptible.”

Edit: Added Wikipedia link and quote.

[ Edited: 31 July 2012 05:48 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 13
4