• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your religion?

What is your religion?

  • Total voters
    132
scourge99 said:
I can make a logical postulation about any noun.
Click to expand...

Is this really analogous? Could you expand?

This is why a claim being logical is almost entirely useless when not coupled with some other basis for establishing truth. For example, empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

There is a limit to the powers of empiricism, no?

Combining logical absolutes with empirical evidence is monumentally more powerful a tool for extracting truth from reality than either one alone. This is demonstrable.
Click to expand...

I agree, but empiricism has its limits, so logic must suffice in certain situations.
 
Ethereal said:
Is this really analogous?
Click to expand...
Flying monkeys are spawned from my butt. Logically sound. Empirically unfounded (I hope :mrgreen:).

Ethereal said:
There is a limit to the powers of empiricism, no?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Ethereal said:
I agree, but empiricism has its limits, so logic must suffice in certain situations.
Click to expand...
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation that is reasonable to believe in which a conclusion is not based on empiricism or the premises derived from empiricism. However, a suspension of disbelief occurs for many people when it comes to the extraordinary claims in the religion they are biased towards.
 
scourge99 said:
Flying monkeys are spawned from my butt. Logically sound.
Click to expand...

Can't one postulation be more logical than another?

Empirically unfounded (I hope :mrgreen:).
Click to expand...

I have faith...:2razz:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation that is reasonable to believe in which a conclusion is not based on empiricism or the premises derived from empiricism. However, a suspension of disbelief occurs for many people when it comes to the extraordinary claims in the religion they are biased towards.
Click to expand...

Empiricism cannot explain “the why” ...know what I mean?
 
Ethereal said:
Can't one postulation be more logical than another?
Click to expand...
I would say it could be more reasonable but not more logical. When I say something is logical or plausible it is because it does not violate the rules of logic such as the logical absolutes:
Law of identity.
Law of non-contradiction.
Law of excluded middle.

If something is more reasonable than another than on what basis is it more reasonable other than by conformance to the rules of logic. I suggested empiricism. On what basis are you proposing something can be more reasonable other than by those two things? For example: Intuition?

Ethereal said:
Empiricism cannot explain “the why” ...know what I mean?
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be obtuse but I don't understand.

There is a difference between:
1) not being able to explain something now with empiricism.
2) not ever being able to explain something with empiricism.
 
EgoffTib said:
Again, you misuse the word "faith". Unless you think that saying "I am a human being" is a statement based on faith. As Lachaen stated earlier, atheism is about as much based on faith as is not believing in unicorns. It's not an act of faith, it's a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...



uhm, werent you the one who has seen "sentient beings from other dimensions"?


Just sayin.... :shrug:


:cool:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
uhm, werent you the one who has seen "sentient beings from other dimensions"?


Just sayin.... :shrug:


:cool:
Click to expand...

Cute, but no, I have not encountered sentient beings from other dimensions. Even if I had, how is that even remotely relevant to the discussion we are having about you misusing the word "faith"?
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
Cute, but no, I have not encountered sentient beings from other dimensions. Even if I had, how is that even remotely relevant to the discussion we are having about you misusing the word "faith"?
Click to expand...




Here is how:


EgoffTib said:
I was hoping to get people's views on reality. Under the influence of psychedelics, people claim to see things that are unfathomable to the mind or things which transcend the English language. They can see, hear and touch objects in this "realm".

My problem is with people discounting this as purely fictional. If we base reality off of the wiki definition:

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist". [1] The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In other words, "reality", as a philosophical category, includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).

...We get pretty much nowhere. So what makes people automatically assume that people are seeing things which do not exist, rather than accepting that they have altered their sense of perception in this endeavor and are now seeing things that normally go unnoticed?
Click to expand...


EgoffTib said:
Haha I'm just playing devil's advocate here. What really interests me is people on different sides of the globe encountering the same sentient beings while in "hyperspace".
Click to expand...


EgoffTib said:
In a study done by Dr. Rick Strassman for his book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule", some of the patients saw beings that other people, across the globe, had reported seeing. Example: One of the patients saw a snake with human arms. The entity supposedly spoke to him and explained that the Universe, as we know it, was a fabrication of the human mind, and did not exist. Another man in Norway encountered the SAME being when under the effects of DMT.
Click to expand...



My response to Dr. Patrick:


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Claiming "most people" are meeting sentient beings from different dimensions is a pretty faith based claim, no?
Click to expand...




:shrug: :mrgreen:
 
Roman catholic.

Then I've been to a catholic high school, I became agnostic.

Then I've been to a catholic university, now I'm atheist.

Epicurus.jpg
 
Last edited:
bub said:
Epicurus.jpg
Click to expand...
I think you should check out the theosophists and traditionalists/perennialists on this particular area. They do at least offer some interesting solutions. Lord Northbourne's work is very intriguing. And obviously Catholic teaching deals with it as well; something tells me you didn't pay much attention to your classes on such matters.
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
It is logical for a being to exist that was not born, nor will die? It is also logical that this being is omnipotent?
Click to expand...
Now I'm not one to enter these debates much but here goes.

What do you mean by being?

As I quoted recently Rene Guenon sums up the idea of being in its completeness quite well:

If we [...] define Being in the universal sense as the principle of manifestation, and at the same time as comprising in itself the totality of possibilities of all manifestation, we must say that Being is not infinite because it does not coincide with total Possibility; and all the more so because Being, as the principle of manifestation, although it does indeed comprise all the possibilities of manifestation, does so only insofar as they are actually manifested. Outside of Being, therefore, are all the rest, that is all the possibilities of non-manifestation, as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves insofar as they are in the unmanifested state; and included among these is Being itself, which cannot belong to manifestation since it is the principle thereof, and in consequence is itself unmanifested. For want of any other term, we are obliged to designate all that is thus outside and beyond Being as "Non-Being", but for us this negative term is in no way synonym for `nothingness`

So God in his personal, manifested sense is simply all this being and is obviously beyond birth and death because these things are part of being, but he is not everything in this sense; God in his totality is beyond being, he contains being but is himself non-being; reality, all-possibilty; the absolute, unmanifested totality.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Here is how:












My response to Dr. Patrick:







:shrug: :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Personally I don't have a problem with what Eg talks about in those quotes, the idea that drugs can help, albeit often unpredictably, in mystic encounters is a common religious idea. His later rejection of it and strange acceptance of mainstream, Western Atheism is the weird thing. It seems to me this has a lot to do with his political and social ideology; he very much dislikes traditional, particularly Western, religion it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Now I'm not one to enter these debates much but here goes.

What do you mean by being?

As I quoted recently Rene Guenon sums up the idea of being in its completeness quite well:

If we [...] define Being in the universal sense as the principle of manifestation, and at the same time as comprising in itself the totality of possibilities of all manifestation, we must say that Being is not infinite because it does not coincide with total Possibility; and all the more so because Being, as the principle of manifestation, although it does indeed comprise all the possibilities of manifestation, does so only insofar as they are actually manifested. Outside of Being, therefore, are all the rest, that is all the possibilities of non-manifestation, as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves insofar as they are in the unmanifested state; and included among these is Being itself, which cannot belong to manifestation since it is the principle thereof, and in consequence is itself unmanifested. For want of any other term, we are obliged to designate all that is thus outside and beyond Being as "Non-Being", but for us this negative term is in no way synonym for `nothingness`

So God in his personal, manifested sense is simply all this being and is obviously beyond birth and death because these things are part of being, but he is not everything in this sense; God in his totality is beyond being, he contains being but is himself non-being; reality, all-possibilty; the absolute, unmanifested totality.
Click to expand...
Why can't god manifest as a being even though he is obviously more than the perceived manifestation?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Here is how:


My response to Dr. Patrick:

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Most people... in the book. Not most people in general. The people who were under the influence of DMT in a controlled setting encountered supposed suprahuman beings that fit many Jungian archetypes. How is this based in faith?
 
Wessexman said:
Personally I don't have a problem with what Eg talks about in those quotes, the idea that drugs can help, albeit often unpredictably, in mystic encounters is a common religious idea. His later rejection of it and strange acceptance of mainstream, Western Atheism is the weird thing.
Click to expand...
When have I rejected that drugs can help people have spiritual experiences? That's the only reason I've ever taken psychedelics. Also, I'm a bit more of a pantheist now.

It seems to me this has a lot to do with his political and social ideology; he very much dislikes traditional, particularly Western, religion it seems to me.
Click to expand...
I used to dislike Western religion. Then I started encountering and conversing with intelligent Christians. It's the literal interpretation of the Bible I find to be silly.
 
EgoffTib said:
Most people... in the book. Not most people in general. The people who were under the influence of DMT in a controlled setting encountered supposed suprahuman beings that fit many Jungian archetypes. How is this based in faith?
Click to expand...




What book? There is no book.... zen chanting. :2razz:



(you are changing your origional position on them sentient beings. ;) )
 
Wessexman said:
Personally I don't have a problem with what Eg talks about in those quotes, the idea that drugs can help, albeit often unpredictably, in mystic encounters is a common religious idea. His later rejection of it and strange acceptance of mainstream, Western Atheism is the weird thing. It seems to me this has a lot to do with his political and social ideology; he very much dislikes traditional, particularly Western, religion it seems to me.
Click to expand...



I don't either, it's easy to tease though. ;)


I agree is acceptence of western Athierism, is strange, considering his past musings.....
 
EgoffTib said:
When have I rejected that drugs can help people have spiritual experiences? That's the only reason I've ever taken psychedelics. Also, I'm a bit more of a pantheist now.
Click to expand...
I just meant you seemed to reject these previous "musings" in this thread. Maybe me, and the Rev, were wrong in our interpretations though.

Personally, I sort of agree with you about the drugs although I'd say they were unpredictable and are generally not used by the more "advanced" mystics, like St.John of the Cross, who do not need such things.

I used to dislike Western religion. Then I started encountering and conversing with intelligent Christians.
Click to expand...
Have you ever looked into the Perennialists and theosophists.? The former excellently show the similarities between the eastern and western religions, while reminding everyone that they distinct paths and must not be blended to destroy their long worked out approaches to the perennial tradition inherent in them. The theosophists are sort of similar and offer some interest insight though they are more likely to devolve into soft ecumenicalism.

Here is an interesting site on Perennialism.

http://www.religioperennis.org/

It's the literal interpretation of the Bible I find to be silly.
Click to expand...
You must take the bible as part of the exoteric dimension of Christianity. As a, broadly speaking Catholic(Anglican not Roman.), I do disagree with the "bible-olotry" you mention but one still must remember that not everyone can be a theologian or mystic, the exoteric, moral and the dogmatic parts of any traditional, revealed(and some unrevealed.) religion help to introduce the average person to the religion and getting them on the right path.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I think you should check out the theosophists and traditionalists/perennialists on this particular area. They do at least offer some interesting solutions. Lord Northbourne's work is very intriguing. And obviously Catholic teaching deals with it as well; something tells me you didn't pay much attention to your classes on such matters.
Click to expand...

religion classes were total BS, and I've never been very interested in philosophy or religion. To me, catholicism or christianity in general are just a belief among thousands of others, similar to more ancient beliefs and having many similarities with various Egyptian and Summerian religions while pretending to be original and "true".

The Noah's myth is enough to demonstrate my point of view. It already existed in most other religions (summerian, phenician...) and it is a transformation of something that really happened, the black sea that filled up 10 or 12,000 years ago.

Like the myth of the arch of noah, all the rest of the bible (same for the koran) is just a compilation of an old oral tradition whose roots are real events, totally transformed and gradually losing all its meaning as time went on. It's just a compilation of very old moral principles. Interesting on a historical point of view, but nothing "holy".
 
I'm Agnostic. I believe anyone who thinks they know anything about the universe is just lieing to themselves.
 
bub said:
religion classes were total BS, and I've never been very interested in philosophy or religion.
Click to expand...
They why criticise their beliefs without looking into them much?
To me, catholicism or christianity in general are just a belief among thousands of others, similar to more ancient beliefs and having many similarities with various Egyptian and Summerian religions while pretending to be original and "true".

The Noah's myth is enough to demonstrate my point of view. It already existed in most other religions (summerian, phenician...) and it is a transformation of something that really happened, the black sea that filled up 10 or 12,000 years ago.

Like the myth of the arch of noah, all the rest of the bible (same for the koran) is just a compilation of an old oral tradition whose roots are real events, totally transformed and gradually losing all its meaning as time went on. It's just a compilation of very old moral principles. Interesting on a historical point of view, but nothing "holy".
Click to expand...
You really have to look into the theosophists and traditionalists/perennialists.

Also the New testament and later old testament is somewhat different from the very old stuff, historically speaking.
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
More silliness from you? First off, I have no specific religion. I voted Buddhist in the poll because I live my life as a Buddhist, yet do not subscribe to the dogma(Though, as you can tell, Right Speech is a weak point of mine). Secondly, I do not believe in God. I'm sorry you feel that saying the same phrase in two posts means that an individual is a "non original thinker"(as if you were the arbiter of such things...).

The most amusing thing about you is that you call me a "non original thinker", yet post like every other stereotypical atheist(read: sheep). You do realize that being an atheist sheep is just as bad as being a Christian one, right?

Try to stay afloat next time, dear.

:sinking:
Click to expand...

so if you don't follow the dogma why do you call yourself and live like a Buddhist?

being a Buddhist that doesn't really practice makes you what, would that be very confused or uncommitted or a Christian wanna be that can't commit to that either? just what is a Buddhist wanna be called?
 
Wessexman said:
They why criticise their beliefs without looking into them much?
Click to expand...

I don't need to look into them, a single event is enough to demonstrate that religions are not "sacred" or "holy": the black sea deluge

You really have to look into the theosophists and traditionalists/perennialists.

Also the New testament and later old testament is somewhat different from the very old stuff, historically speaking.
Click to expand...

thanks, I didn't know that. I read some parts of the article about that on wikipedia, but unfortunately that doesn't convince me more than christianity:

"Theosophists believe that religion, philosophy, science, the arts, commerce, and philanthropy, among other "virtues," lead people ever closer to "the Absolute." Planets, solar systems, galaxies, and the cosmos itself are regarded as conscious entities, fulfilling their own evolutionary paths. The spiritual units of consciousness in the universe are the Monads, which may manifest as angels, human beings or in various other forms"

To me, religion does not lead to "the absolute". Religion is a set of beliefs and traditions that is very ancient, it's the experience of our ancestors that has been transmitted during thousands of years and that has slowly evolved into something totally allegoric.

While these kinds of stories have been useful in the past, and have helped the human race to survive, it progressively lost all its usefulness and became a set of dogms, people started fighting about details, some people started applying it literally etc...while at the origin it was just a bunch of stories that have a very ancient origin.

It's exactly like that:
1) someone observes that it's better to work slower but regularly than fast but too late
2) he tells that to his children and to his friends
3) the story is transmitted to the newer generations, and becomes more allegoric (it becomes the story of "the turtle and the rabbit")
4) it becomes a dogm
5) people start fighting about stupid details like wether the rabbit was immortal or not, or want to impose their own version of the myth to other people



Theosophists further hold that human civilization, like all other parts of the universe, develops through cycles of seven stages. Blavatsky argued that the whole humanity, and indeed every reincarnating human monad, evolves through a series of seven "Root Races". Thus in the first age, humans were pure spirit; in the second age, they were sexless beings inhabiting the now lost continent of Hyperborea; in the third age the giant Lemurians were informed by spiritual impulses endowing them with human consciousness and sexual reproduction. Modern humans finally developed on the continent of Atlantis. Sin
Click to expand...

lol that sounds like lord of the rings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom