[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Because we have no choice; and neither do you. [/quote]
You mean evolution over creationism? errrr
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You make a false assumption that was the reason to begin with. God was, is and always will be whether you can figure out when a storm is coming or not shouldn’t play into the equation, but unfortunately it does, doesn’t it? We’re something we humans we can figure out things like never before, yea. Knowledge will increase and I think that’s a good thing, but science is not God and there is a place for both.[/quote]
No, I make a correct assumption that it’s our inclination to look at, and impose a human sense of reason on whatever we deal with, because otherwise we can’t understand it.
Yes, science in not God, and there is room for both. But when religion asks us to live with obvious cognitive dissonance, there’s a problem, and when we say religion is wrong, we’re not saying God is wrong, we’re saying the fellows who made up the religion messed up.
It would be stupid for me to argue with you that Apollo drives a chariot through the sky everyday, and that explains how the sun rises and sets. And if the rest of my mythology falls apart because we found out that the universe isn’t geocentric, well that sucks for me and the guys who made up my religion.
If anything, I’d argue that more science we have, the more we know about nature, the more we know about God: we are not limiting God, we are expanding our knowledge of what God is not, i.e. I know God is not some bearded dude living atop Mt. Olympus throwing lighting bolts.
Wow, looks like I’m late to the brawl…
@TC…thank you for putting this up!
@Chrisd2147…yup that’s a great point. I’m afraid we’re hardwired to argue like this, though 
Reasoning is a rationalization (and search for confirming evidence) of our emotions, not a way to find “truth”. Study the work of Damasio, Greene, and Haidt on the subject of reasoning as rationalization, particularly in relation to RELIGIOUS and MORAL discourse!!! We unite against eachother in opposition to truth…we don’t dispassionately reason our way to truth…I think that’s an essential property of these threads, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, one of the downers of this research is, once someone finds the research unpalatable (they can’t stand their great argument for/against religion being merely a rationalization), they will no longer listen to reasons to the contrary! I’m doing the same thing right now, in fact 
@Pat: You write something like, “I would like to see him (Chek) have the balls to defend his assertion”. I think if you met Paul he would be happy to. He agreed to do an interview with T-Nation, and share his belief system within a limited format (probably the interview had time-constraints). I think you would agree it’s not fair to accuse someone of “not having the balls” to defend themselves when all you know is a few (probably edited) sentences from a web-interview. I don’t purport to know your entire belief system (nor am I aggravated by it) just by this thread, and I don’t assume you couldn’t defend your beliefs just because I’ve read a few disparate remarks…is that a fair mentality to take toward Paul Chek (assuming being fair has an all things considered value)?
Anyways, it bears mentioning, for both Mr. Chek and those (but I’ve seen few) that have commented on Buddhism…Buddhism is a “religion” (whatever that means) like any other. The idea of Buddhism as “more of a philosophy” (whatever that means) or that Buddhists are nicer, happier people is merely a colonialist, westernization of Buddhism. Buddhists don’t just sit around contemplating nonduality, the vast majority pray to spirits, believe in supernatural dieties/afterlives, and get just as cranky about these arguments as any of us! The “New Age” interpretation of Buddhism, or “Taoism”, or “Eastern Thought” is about money and quote mining…not about giving an honest appraisel of a belief system. You can’t just keep the nonduality and throw out the rest! I’m not sure that came across in Paul’s interview.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You make a false assumption that was the reason to begin with. God was, is and always will be whether you can figure out when a storm is coming or not shouldn’t play into the equation, but unfortunately it does, doesn’t it? We’re something we humans we can figure out things like never before, yea. Knowledge will increase and I think that’s a good thing, but science is not God and there is a place for both.[/quote]
No, I make a correct assumption that it’s our inclination to look at, and impose a human sense of reason on whatever we deal with, because otherwise we can’t understand it.[/quote]
That makes a little more sense, as it is our inclination to do so, however this is what I was responding to:
Simply because you don’t think you need this metaphysical explanation, doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.
[quote]
Yes, science in not God, and there is room for both.[/quote]
I’m glad you agree and I think any intelligent open minded person would.
Before I would consider agreeing with that I’d really have get into specifics. Obviously, some religions are wrong, we can agree on the obvious ones. We could begin by ruling on those who may ask us to hurt ourselves or others. Beyond that there are major gray areas.
[quote]
If anything, I’d argue that more science we have, the more we know about nature, the more we know about God: we are not limiting God, we are expanding our knowledge of what God is not, i.e. I know God is not some bearded dude living atop Mt. Olympus throwing lighting bolts.[/quote]
I agree, but I do think that we have to be careful to not put God in a box. While we may have an idea of what God is not, it’s not so easy to know what God is.
I’m always interested in where people get their views on spirituality. I’m always at least entertained (among other things) when I read about those who choose their beliefs from the latest movie script, or cult following. I’m not saying that Chek is in this group, but some of the comments on this thread are, well, different.
Different is a good word, right? Oh wait am I thinking this or did I just type it?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That makes a little more sense, as it is our inclination to do so, however this is what I was responding to:
Simply because you don’t think you need this metaphysical explanation, doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.
[quote]
I don’t deal with anything on a day to day basis that that known natural laws don’t explain.
Maybe if I were working with particle accelerators, or some other cutting-edge areas of science, I’d run into things that physics can’t comprehend, and then I’d need to adopt some sort of metaphysical explanation. But seasons, weather, natural disasters, reproduction, (the list goes on) that used to mystical and unknown, and that we deal with on a daily basis, no longer need (or have) a metaphysical explanation.
The world of what is knowable (physics) has expanded, and yes, it now precludes a metaphysical explanation. Systems are interconnected, we can’t say “God caused this earthquake, but didn’t cause that one.” And the physical explanation of the earth quack is is agnostic about God.
You can go back further, using our human faculty of reason, and say “Well there must be a fist cause.” And that puts us back in metaphysics, where an Athiest would make the assumption that it’s just your mind demanding the world conform to it’s processes, but we don’t actually need a first cause, and a Thiest will make the assumption that some reasoned “being” started it all. That’s all metaphysics, and there’s a place for it. But I can operate day-to-day, if I like, and never come across a problem that requires I make any of those sorts of leaps.
If on the other hand, I’m 2000 years ago, and I don’t understand that to get my crops to grow, I need water and fertile soil, I’d probably dive into metaphysics daily, asking all kinds of made-up specters to make my plants grow.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m always interested in where people get their views on spirituality. I’m always at least entertained (among other things) when I read about those who choose their beliefs from the latest movie script, or cult following. I’m not saying that Chek is in this group, but some of the comments on this thread are, well, different.
Different is a good word, right? Oh wait am I thinking this or did I just type it?
[/quote]
snickers You just typed it. Your thought process had nothing to do with it. Mine, however, did.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]malonetd wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I said this on another thread somewhere. Man’s psyche will not allow godlessness. If he eschews God or a form of Him he will replace Him with Man. In this sense humanism, atheism, and New Ageism coincide (collide?).[/quote]
Since you said you’ve already mentioned this elsewhere, it might be too much of me to ask her, but I could use some clarification. I’m curious why you would think man cannot be godless.[/quote]
It’s akin to the saying, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” Try to create one and nature will put something there.
Follow that analogy and you’ll see where I’m going with this.[/quote]
I agree with this in principle, but think the order of replacement is questionable. A mystic would probably argue that the idea of an external divine is simply the secondary result of a human’s need to explain himself.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”
New Ageism is a narcissistic, self-absorbed, pseudo philosophy/“religion.” It is only about attempting to deify the self, to turn yourself into a little god. It’s just the sort of philosophy that would appeal to a guy who talks ecstatically about his own fecal matter.
[/quote]
Well then it is probably much more reaslistic than most religions because we probably are as godlike as any creature we are likely to encounter so exploring our own potential is all there is.
I would not necessarily equate the childlike wish for an all knowing and perhaps all loving creator with maturity and the phantasy to live forever in an afterlife and to be united with an all powerful figure is as narcissistic as it gets.
[/quote]
“Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire.” ~ C.S. Lewis
[/quote]
It also holds nothing that any other soul could desire in much the same way as Santa Clause wont come down your chimney either.
[/quote]
That’s fine but quite beside the point. Even if you are not a believer, there is nothing comforting (or wishful thinking or whatnot) about Christianity. It’s simply a matter of understanding the faith.
Regarding the “Christianity = santa claus/flying spaghetti monster” red herring thingie that’s always thrown out on these boards - I am always mystified by this bit of bizarreness.
Christianity transformed the entire western world into a magnificent reality - complete with an enduring and nearly eternal art (paintings, the music, the literature et cetera), a massive and revolutionary scientific enterprise, and the most humane, successful and just political and legal systems in the world. Not only did Christianity provide many of the intellectual underpinnings for these and other impossibly beautiful and unprecedented realities, each and all of these things were informed, inspired, and mobilized by a people brimming with a deep and abiding faith.
Now, Orion, please point me to the civilization similarly indebted to Santa claus or the flying spaghetti monster.
Finally, it seems to me that the people I know who are devout Christians are the most realistic, the most grounded, the least self-deceptive, the most caring people I know. Far from being self-involved, they are intensely absorbed in the people and things and events around them. I cannot say the same of so-called “atheists” (who really aren’t atheists at all because such a thing isn’t really possible.) And I sure as hell can’t say that about new agers.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Because we have no choice; and neither do you. [/quote]
I’m not following, you do not have a choice in what you believe?
But if you believe something aren’t you choosing to believe it?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]jwillow wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”[/quote]
Perhaps what’s truly childish is believing in heaven.
Stranger in a Strange Land popularized the phrase “Thou art God” some 40 years ago.
In a letter to his editor in 1960, Robert Heinlein explained and summarized what he had intended that phrase to convey:
That pantheistic, mystical “Thou art God!” chorus that runs through the book is not offered as a creed, but as an existentialist assumption of personal responsibility, devoid of all godding. It says, "Don’t appeal for mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he’s not at home and never was at home, and couldn’t care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy - live or die - is strictly your business and the universe doesn’t care. In fact, you may be the universe and the only cause for your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it - “Thou art God!”[/quote]
…and it is this that scares most believers shitless…
[/quote]
Evidence?[/quote]
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Well, he is not talking about a religion. He is talking about people, and a blanket statement like that on these forums needs to be backed up with facts or at the minimum logic.[/quote]
Right, so you wouldn’t believe this statement without evidence, but you would believe in a theory that defines the whole universe and your existence without evidence?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
By reading the overall tone, I would suspect that Paul has studied the works of Ken Wilber,(or at least Carol Graves and Don Beck) who I recommend to anyone interested in looking at such topics at a deeper level. For those that read any of my later posts in “is Ayn Rand reslevant” will remember that I tried to give a brief overview of some of his work. I for one would be glad to see a little more of this type of information in future articles.
[/quote]
I read some of Wilber in college, “Grace and Grit” which describes and accounts the story of his wife’s death from breast cancer was a very good one. Another one, I forgot the title, was more philosophical but his ideas are lucid, novel, reasonable, and remove the haziness from the real issues. I would also recommend his works.
Despite the arguments on religion, there is such a thing as an authentic ‘spiritual’ experience. There are well documented practices that have been used to acheive it. If physical training can increase mental, physical, and emotional health, I would argue that ‘spiritual’ training can also increase mental, physical, and emotional health.
Chek may or may not be a nutcase, but individuals from every theological belief system have engaged in more or less common activities to develop spiritually.
I would be interested in hearing more about some of these practices and how they are integrated into training a healthier physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual being, from someone who has taken the time to experiment with them.
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Because we have no choice; and neither do you. [/quote]
I’m not following, you do not have a choice in what you believe?
But if you believe something aren’t you choosing to believe it?[/quote]
What I mean is this: believing that one can limit one’s beliefs to those that are founded upon scientifically-derived evidence is a will-o-wisp. It is a radical self deception. Think about it.
If you are honest about all of the beliefs you hold (from grand and complex theories to unexamined - and perhaps un-expressible - assumptions about things large and small) you will find that the overwhelming bulk of what you believe, consciously or otherwise, hasn’t a shred of scientific evidence to back it up.
For the people who advocate that one should follow a particular religion, how do you choose which one is right to you? Or is having “a” religion more important than having “the” religion?
I’m not looking to start a “X is best” argument (though I fear that I will), but what do you guys think is the best way to determine the right path?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Because we have no choice; and neither do you. [/quote]
I’m not following, you do not have a choice in what you believe?
But if you believe something aren’t you choosing to believe it?[/quote]
What I mean is this: believing that one can limit one’s beliefs to those that are founded upon scientifically-derived evidence is a will-o-wisp. It is a radical self deception. Think about it.
If you are honest about all of the beliefs you hold (from grand and complex theories to unexamined - and perhaps un-expressible - assumptions about things large and small) you will find that the overwhelming bulk of what you believe, consciously or otherwise, hasn’t a shred of scientific evidence to back it up.
[/quote]
Don’t project your way of living on to me, you have no idea what i do or don’t believe, what i do or do not think. If you would, please name me one thing that i believe that does not have a rational thought process and some scientific evidence behind it.
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]jwillow wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”[/quote]
Perhaps what’s truly childish is believing in heaven.
Stranger in a Strange Land popularized the phrase “Thou art God” some 40 years ago.
In a letter to his editor in 1960, Robert Heinlein explained and summarized what he had intended that phrase to convey:
That pantheistic, mystical “Thou art God!” chorus that runs through the book is not offered as a creed, but as an existentialist assumption of personal responsibility, devoid of all godding. It says, "Don’t appeal for mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he’s not at home and never was at home, and couldn’t care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy - live or die - is strictly your business and the universe doesn’t care. In fact, you may be the universe and the only cause for your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it - “Thou art God!”[/quote]
…and it is this that scares most believers shitless…
[/quote]
Evidence?[/quote]
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Well, he is not talking about a religion. He is talking about people, and a blanket statement like that on these forums needs to be backed up with facts or at the minimum logic.[/quote]
Right, so you wouldn’t believe this statement without evidence, but you would believe in a theory that defines the whole universe and your existence without evidence?
[/quote]
My religion follows logic, evolution does not prove my God is not real. My religion actually accepts evolution. I do not debate theology with non-believers, that is equivalent to debating if opera is the best music with someone that does not like music. I do not say they are wrong for not liking music, but it is pointless to argue with them.
However, we are not having a theology debate, he just stated “and it is this that scares most believers shitless.” So obviously there would have to be some statistical data for that kind of statement in a debate, I mean personally I have never read that paragraph before so I’m not sure if it was supposed to scare me or not.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sbr wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]jwillow wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”[/quote]
Perhaps what’s truly childish is believing in heaven.
Stranger in a Strange Land popularized the phrase “Thou art God” some 40 years ago.
In a letter to his editor in 1960, Robert Heinlein explained and summarized what he had intended that phrase to convey:
That pantheistic, mystical “Thou art God!” chorus that runs through the book is not offered as a creed, but as an existentialist assumption of personal responsibility, devoid of all godding. It says, "Don’t appeal for mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he’s not at home and never was at home, and couldn’t care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy - live or die - is strictly your business and the universe doesn’t care. In fact, you may be the universe and the only cause for your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it - “Thou art God!”[/quote]
…and it is this that scares most believers shitless…
[/quote]
Evidence?[/quote]
Ofcourse, why would you believe anything without evidence.[/quote]
Well, he is not talking about a religion. He is talking about people, and a blanket statement like that on these forums needs to be backed up with facts or at the minimum logic.[/quote]
Right, so you wouldn’t believe this statement without evidence, but you would believe in a theory that defines the whole universe and your existence without evidence?
[/quote]
My religion follows logic, evolution does not prove my God is not real. My religion actually accepts evolution. I do not debate theology with non-believers, that is equivalent to debating if opera is the best music with someone that does not like music. I do not say they are wrong for not liking music, but it is pointless to argue with them.
However, we are not having a theology debate, he just stated “and it is this that scares most believers shitless.” So obviously there would have to be some statistical data for that kind of statement in a debate, I mean personally I have never read that paragraph before so I’m not sure if it was supposed to scare me or not.[/quote]
There lot of things that follow logic that have no bearing in life, the movie “The Matrix” could be thought of a very logical conclusion to the reality of our universe and it also does not discount evolution.
You can not “debate” theology with anyone of a different theology than yours.
I’ll play along with your music analogy, though an analogy isn’t really needed, you and me both understand what we are talking about.
It’s more like you would be arguing that opera is the only real music and all other music does not exist, and is a ploy used by the anti opera people to keep people away from opera.
The only thing is that neither you or anyone else can prove they have ever even heard opera or any other music, but believe their taste in music to be only the real expression of music regardless of that fact.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”
New Ageism is a narcissistic, self-absorbed, pseudo philosophy/“religion.” It is only about attempting to deify the self, to turn yourself into a little god. It’s just the sort of philosophy that would appeal to a guy who talks ecstatically about his own fecal matter.
[/quote]
Well then it is probably much more reaslistic than most religions because we probably are as godlike as any creature we are likely to encounter so exploring our own potential is all there is.
I would not necessarily equate the childlike wish for an all knowing and perhaps all loving creator with maturity and the phantasy to live forever in an afterlife and to be united with an all powerful figure is as narcissistic as it gets.
[/quote]
“Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire.” ~ C.S. Lewis
[/quote]
It also holds nothing that any other soul could desire in much the same way as Santa Clause wont come down your chimney either.
[/quote]
That’s fine but quite beside the point. Even if you are not a believer, there is nothing comforting (or wishful thinking or whatnot) about Christianity. It’s simply a matter of understanding the faith.
Regarding the “Christianity = santa claus/flying spaghetti monster” red herring thingie that’s always thrown out on these boards - I am always mystified by this bit of bizarreness.
Christianity transformed the entire western world into a magnificent reality - complete with an enduring and nearly eternal art (paintings, the music, the literature et cetera), a massive and revolutionary scientific enterprise, and the most humane, successful and just political and legal systems in the world. Not only did Christianity provide many of the intellectual underpinnings for these and other impossibly beautiful and unprecedented realities, each and all of these things were informed, inspired, and mobilized by a people brimming with a deep and abiding faith.
Now, Orion, please point me to the civilization similarly indebted to Santa claus or the flying spaghetti monster.
Finally, it seems to me that the people I know who are devout Christians are the most realistic, the most grounded, the least self-deceptive, the most caring people I know. Far from being self-involved, they are intensely absorbed in the people and things and events around them. I cannot say the same of so-called “atheists” (who really aren’t atheists at all because such a thing isn’t really possible.) And I sure as hell can’t say that about new agers.
[/quote]
While I agree that Christianity was influential we do not owe that much to it.
Very often our culture could only evolve by directly fighting its own church and we only are were we are today by rendering it practically powerless.
One could argue that there comes a time to lay off these childish superstitions.
I would not do that because something else will fill that void, but christianity just provided a framework for all kinds of cultural expressions and not just positive ones so I see no reason to put it on a pedestal.
The codification of Roman law and the relatively small and therefore weak states in Europe have as much, if not more, to do with our development as our church does.
Wait, so have my gains stalled because I’m not eating enough dead meat or because I’m not lighting candles around squat rack?