92
   

Atheists... Your life is pointless

 
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:10 pm
@spendius,
bump
[X] Spherical Life
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:16 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Compassion is a strength, not a weakness. Very Happy
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:21 pm
@MattDavis,
Wink Very Happy

I can not see any other way...

And it is regarded as a heroic virtue by the Church as well! 2 Cents
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:21 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
But if the Church is fragmented in as many ways as suits any particular purpose in any place or at any time then it disappears. Disobedience does that. Inventing your own theology does that.

And when the Church has disappeared what do you propose to put in its place to uphold the ideals you favour and if you do find a system that successfully achieves that objective how will it impact on modern economic activity?

A Vatican theologian necessarily takes into account the impact on economic activity.

Your vocation will be more effective within the Church Spade. You might benefit from a chat with an old priest with experience of foreign cultures and deprived areas.

spendius
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:22 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
However, I don't seem to have much trouble finding love among members of the opposite sex.


Exactly. You have hit the nail on the head.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:30 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Compassion is a strength, not a weakness.


It depends on how many take undeserving advantage of it by wheedling and cringing which the soaps have shown us how to do. It is certainly a weakness when it gets out of hand as it shows signs of doing.

We often see on our TV the most heartbreaking handwringing by professional experts on behalf of people who have 47 inch HD TV sets, 200 fluffy toys and are a few stone overweight. And more besides. Our welfare system works. Just about. It's in intensive care just now.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:39 pm
@spendius,
Sounds like a great argument for extending compassion with logos.
Gotta go off to yoga. Wink
Hopefully no one tries to use me a a spanner.
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:41 pm
@spendius,
I appreciate your encouragements mate...

It is not all about the institution for me, like it is to you...

And that is how it seems we both feel...

I am not here to tear down what you stand for...and I do not feel you tear down what I have to say...

My words of encouragements to you...

I think you should embrace the faith that the Church stands for if you are going to explain how viable the institution actually is...

Otherwise, it just seems that you are not being loyal or obedient either...

And then once again...I think you are just preaching to the wrong person...

I have no complaints with what you are saying...and I think that there is validity to what you are saying...

But I do not think it is as cut and dry as most people think...

And I do not feel like explaining it again...

I simply do not think that one who knows scripture, knows the church, knows the religion...etc...but preaches boldly radically different because of a higher compulsion they claim they have with God himself...while rationalizing how bad it may be for themselves in the end...Is in anyway indicative that it is someone trying to tear down the church, Christians, The Bible etc...like you seem to think it does...I think it shows genuineness, and that it may be possible this person can speak with God and is not just posting bullshit to hear himself speak...because you do not believe there is a God, or people with a spiritual gift...but back the church for social reasons...So to be honest with you again...I am not sure you would ever be able to empathize with my positions, and why I am obedient to them...

But it gets very difficult to explain...especially to someone who supports the church, but not the spiritual side...and honestly I do not have the strength to try to give my explicit perspectives about it...

All that I can say again is we are not enemy's here...I am not against but with...and I see you as with and not against...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 04:57 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
The reduction of injustice since Pagan times is a measure of Christianity's success in that regard but getting rid of injustice altogether, which is where the sophistry of Setanta's question comes in, is a long way off.


It can easily be argued (perhaps "more easily and logically argued) that the reduction of injustice, such as there is, came despite Christianity's success...not as a result of it.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 05:18 pm
The 'chattering classes' will probably not think themselves into extinction because of the 'selfish gene' ... Hume was probably correct: emotion drives reason... not the other way round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

"Given that one cannot be motivated by reason alone, requiring the input of the passions, Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality.
Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular."
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 05:32 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

FBM wrote:

The problem for me is that with religion as the placebo, there are people so addicted to it that they demand that the rest of the world believe that the placebo is real medicine, and that those who don't use it - because they don't need it - are bad people deserving death and damnation. Furthermore, they want to prevent people from using anything else but their brand of placebo, again, punishable by death and damnation. I have a problem with those people not because they're using the placebo, but because they're hostile and aggressive to the rest of us.

Of course should that happen then it would be reprehensible and you'd be right to condemn it seemingly in my opinion. What's important is what the Buddha taught and why because that may well be the best criteria on which Buddhism should be judged.

Of course if we don't 'fully' understand what the Buddha taught and why then our opinions may just be mistaken but for those uninterested in such things then of course... that is as it should be.


In my experience with Buddhism, the beginner-level understanding is the most common. It has to do with mistaking rebirth for reincarnation and transmigration, praying to the Buddha and doing good deeds in order to earn a better future existence. (I'm thinking of Asia here. I don't have much experience with Western Buddhists.)

As you work through the philosophy, though, you encounter anatta, paticca samuppada, etc, and find that the real purpose of the teachings is to help people relieve their own suffering in this very lifetime. Nothing transcendental or cosmic about it at that level of understanding. Just training the mind, replacing unskilled thinking habits with more effective ones. Not too terribly different from Cognitive Behavior Therapy, except in terminology, imagery, etc.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 05:54 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Nothing transcendental or cosmic about it at that level of understanding. Just training the mind, replacing unskilled thinking habits with more effective ones. Not too terribly different from Cognitive Behavior Therapy, except in terminology, imagery, etc.


But only at those times when the TV cameras are on.

Check out the cognitive behaviour patterns in Lola's Coffee-House but have a few tissues by you to mop up overflowing saliva.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 06:59 pm
@spendius,
Spendius wrote:
Exactly. You have hit the nail on the head.

I can't tell if you're making a pass, or expressing some frustrations. Wink
Is this your foot tapping at me between the bathroom stalls?
Or are you telling me it is easy for me to love because I am loved?
Either way I do love you Spendi.
We however will most likely not be sharing a taxi home tonight.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  0  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 08:01 pm
@MattDavis,
Mr. Green Mr. Green

Remember that conversation we had about 10 days ago in one of those word threads?

ROTFLMFAO...

How was your Yoga class mate?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 08:14 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quit piping the thread Spade Wink

Yoga was good. This is the first time I took this particular teacher's class. It was a vinyasa class (linking breath with movement).
She sings in Sanskrit at the end of class with a Spanish accent. Beautiful voice.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 08:40 pm
@FBM,
With regard to "Western Buddhism" I think the concept most popularized starting with Herman Hess is that of Atman is Brahman.
The "self" is coextensive with the "divine self".
This is an understanding flowing into some Buddhists teachings which originated in the Hindu Vedanta tradition.
As I said before:
Show me what your "God" looks like, and I will show you how you wish "you" were.
FBM
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 10:24 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Nothing transcendental or cosmic about it at that level of understanding. Just training the mind, replacing unskilled thinking habits with more effective ones. Not too terribly different from Cognitive Behavior Therapy, except in terminology, imagery, etc.


But only at those times when the TV cameras are on.

Check out the cognitive behaviour patterns in Lola's Coffee-House but have a few tissues by you to mop up overflowing saliva.


I can't seem to translate that into regular English. Sorry.

0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 10:29 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:

With regard to "Western Buddhism" I think the concept most popularized starting with Herman Hess is that of Atman is Brahman.
The "self" is coextensive with the "divine self".
This is an understanding flowing into some Buddhists teachings which originated in the Hindu Vedanta tradition.
As I said before:
Show me what your "God" looks like, and I will show you how you wish "you" were.


Yes, that's about right. The concept of anatta in the Pali suttas got corrupted into a belief in a True Self (divine, maybe), and True Self became doctrine in Mahayana. Theravada still denies it in its doctrine, but in practice, many Theravadins do actually believe in some sort of 'subtle self' that transmigrates. This is despite the Pali suttas that depict the Buddha as explicitly rejecting that concept. No Self found in the 5 khandas, etc. This is one of the bigger reasons I don't actively participate in institutional Buddhism. I just don't need that placebo. I have read many/most of the suttas for myself and can see how some/many of the original teachings are ignored and/or corrupted in order to find a way for people to keep their belief in an afterlife. To me, it's intellectually dishonest, but then again, there's the 'Wittgenstein's ladder' way of looking at it.

Quote:
...When they are seen & heard,
people are called by this name or that,
but only the name remains
to be pointed to
when they are dead.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.06.than.html
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 10:36 pm
@FBM,
The greatest danger I see is using such a placebo to negate responsibility.
I don't care so much for drug use. I do care if it makes people rob/steal/kill to get their fix.
FBM
 
  1  
Thu 21 Mar, 2013 10:40 pm
@MattDavis,
Not quite sure I follow you there...
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
American Atheists Barred from holding Office - Discussion by edgarblythe
Richard Dawkins doesn't exist! - Question by Jay2know
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Is Atheism the New Age Religion? - Question by Expert2
Critical thinking on the existence of God - Discussion by Susmariosep
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
To the people .. - Question by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.45 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 01:32:01