Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any primal non-christians here?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Plenty of women who are not Christian, and I am one of them. I don't think much of it because most of my friends and family are not religious either.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      He also address that question ontological proofs in these lectures. Your bias keeps coming out. You are conflating theology with naturalism.
      Of course he addresses that. These questions have been hashed, rehashed, ground up, emulsified, and regurgitated since...probably since cooking was invented actually.

      I am conflating unproven with unproven. If proof is a prerequisite to right action, then all action based on ideas lacking proof lacks rightness. If proof is not a prerequisite then the defense given in that Catholic video of the Catholic Church's actions is specious. Ideas are ideas and carry the same innate weight whether about gods or orbital mechanics.

      If you want a hint about what the Catholic church thinks about all of this, consider that they didn't make the same mistake with Darwin's ideas. Unfortunately a lot of other churches didn't spot the trap.


      Who said it was? Not me. Catholicism is simply my background.
      It was used as evidence contradicting the proposition that religion is incompatible with science. If it is not representative of all religion then it does not contradict the proposition. If it was intended to support an assertion that not all religions are incompatible with science, well, first that's a horrible thing to try to prove logically and it isn't a suitable example anyway since it has been at odds with science and even today demands a double standard.



      Standards relative to whom? You want to hold a human religious institution of 1500s-1600s, whose scientific thought was in it's infancy relative to today or to Darwin's time? It begs a question about what you believe of today's age: In what way do you not see religious institutions (such as credited Universities like Notre Dame) being held to the same scientific standards as any other university science department?
      What a strange misdirection.

      Religions are based on a theory, outlined in their religious texts. Catholicism is based on a theory of god loosely based on their bible, for example. The whole religion is a theory, an idea. If it has not been proved, then it has exactly the same merit as any other unproven theory. If it cannot be proved, it has exactly the same merit as a natural theory which cannot be proved. You should note that I used the word natural vs scientific, because the ability to, at some level, prove (or disprove) is necessary to making a theory scientific. That right there was the insight, which I gained at about 7, that switched me from "don't know/don't care" to "religions are false". I figured out enough to understand that a statement which cannot be evaluated cannot be true.


      OP, Him and I could go back and forth on this all day long. Hell, we might even enjoy it, but one of us might kill the other if we had to live together.


      Which is why people like me (male, straight, atheist) get bummed out by the dating scene at times. Even disregarding existing relationships, about 97% of the population is off limits (70% of nonbelievers are male). Add respect for existing relationships and a desire to stay within about +/- 15 years of the same age and the pool drops to less than 1%. Add the old standbys of attraction, common ground, personality, politics in some cases, geography, and so on, and we're looking for one of a few hundred women in any given metro area. Needle in haystack time.
      Last edited by Him; 11-29-2012, 09:00 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
        This is exactly why a lot of people with no particular religious beliefs go to a UU church, for the community and social aspect of it.

        UU churches do not just "let" atheists participate as in tolerate them, they are welcomed wholeheartedly.

        ... .
        Well, I must admit that my personal contact with them is zero. My mother speaks positively about them. I've never seen any reason to check one out even when I literally walked past one twice a day...I was living and working in Anaheim, ca, with work close enough to home that I walked. Somewhere during that time a UU congregation took over a building along the way. I had plenty of opportunity and zero interest. Obviously that blog post and the assertion that the book it discusses is by and for UU folks presents a different view but even there the blogger wasn't actually talking about his experience with a UU congregation. I'm glad to hear it is a good/welcoming place in your experience and that I can add your opinion to my mother's on the pro-UU side.

        Comment


        • #64
          Which is why people like me (male, straight, atheist) get bummed out by the dating scene at times. Even disregarding existing relationships, about 97% of the population is off limits (70% of nonbelievers are male). Add respect for existing relationships and a desire to stay within about +/- 15 years of the same age and the pool drops to less than 1%. Add the old standbys of attraction, common ground, personality, politics in some cases, geography, and so on, and we're looking for one of a few hundred women in any given metro area. Needle in haystack time.
          Not saying you are wrong but I would be interested to know where you got that number.

          Originally posted by Him View Post
          Well, I must admit that my personal contact with them is zero. My mother speaks positively about them. I've never seen any reason to check one out even when I literally walked past one twice a day...I was living and working in Anaheim, ca, with work close enough to home that I walked. Somewhere during that time a UU congregation took over a building along the way. I had plenty of opportunity and zero interest. Obviously that blog post and the assertion that the book it discusses is by and for UU folks presents a different view but even there the blogger wasn't actually talking about his experience with a UU congregation. I'm glad to hear it is a good/welcoming place in your experience and that I can add your opinion to my mother's on the pro-UU side.
          Listen to your mother. She knows more than some random blogger.

          If you are in SoCal again, stop by San Diego and I'll take you to a Sunday service.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            Not saying you are wrong but I would be interested to know where you got that number.
            Atheist Demographics (the specific claim is 69% male, 29% female...I split the uncertain middle)

            That roughly matches my personal observation. I don't actually know if there is a gender bias in views held, or in willingness to express disagreement with commonly held views. In other words, it may be that the numbers are equal but more atheist females are closeted. In general older people tend to be more comfortable being themselves/expressing their true views so you could probably answer that question by seeing if the bias diminishes with age.

            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            Listen to your mother. She knows more than some random blogger.
            But that goes against the whole spirit of the Internet!

            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            If you are in SoCal again, stop by San Diego and I'll take you to a Sunday service.
            A very kind offer. If I can, I will. I usually go back around January every year but it looks like that won't be possible this year.
            Last edited by Him; 11-29-2012, 08:52 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              Once again, for the record. I sang in the UU choir for years and I am an atheist. The UU in no way, shape, or form "demonizes" atheism. In fact most UUs I know are atheists or secular humanists of some sort. That is one book, and one blog post, not church policy.
              There was a UU minister in lancaster whom I met who was an atheist. Yet he was still the leader of their church. It was interesting.

              Also, there are atheist quakers. it's fairly common in the community. it's why we were so comfortable there for so long.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Him View Post
                Atheist Demographics (the specific claim is 69% male, 29% female...I split the uncertain middle)

                That roughly matches my personal observation. I don't actually know if there is a gender bias in views held, or in willingness to express disagreement with commonly held views. In other words, it may be that the numbers are equal but more atheist females are closeted. In general older people tend to be more comfortable being themselves/expressing their true views so you could probably answer that question by seeing if the bias diminishes with age.
                Fascinating link. Thank you. It does mention the question of the "nones" as in the people who reject all categories and are basically saying "none of the above" or leave the question blank when asked about religious preferences. Perhaps a larger percentage of non-believing women are in this group.

                So, does this mean that as an atheist single straight female my chances of finding a guy who sees the world as I do are not as bleak as I thought? Cool.

                Comment


                • #68
                  I'm more likely to answer "none" over "atheist" because I"m not comfortable with the more staunch atheistic perspectives (which tend to be anti-religion) because of my buddhist leanings (and general "spirituality").

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    How did you go from this

                    I am conflating unproven with unproven. If proof is a prerequisite to right action, then all action based on ideas lacking proof lacks rightness. If proof is not a prerequisite then the defense given in that Catholic video of the Catholic Church's actions is specious. Ideas are ideas and carry the same innate weight whether about gods or orbital mechanics.
                    to this

                    What a strange misdirection.

                    Religions are based on a theory, outlined in their religious texts. Catholicism is based on a theory of god loosely based on their bible, for example. The whole religion is a theory, an idea. If it has not been proved, then it has exactly the same merit as any other unproven theory. If it cannot be proved, it has exactly the same merit as a natural theory which cannot be proved. You should note that I used the word natural vs scientific, because the ability to, at some level, prove (or disprove) is necessary to making a theory scientific. That right there was the insight, which I gained at about 7, that switched me from "don't know/don't care" to "religions are false". I figured out enough to understand that a statement which cannot be evaluated cannot be true.
                    (I used "proof" because you introduced the term.) In the strict sense theories are never proven. Theorems are provable but not theories since they lend themselves to being falsifiable....skepticism. A proof is not falsifiable. There's no need, I'm sure you'll agree, to postulate a theory of some god to make a scientific observation about orbital mechanics.
                    Theology doesn't use scientific inquiry and theory. An ontology uses philosophical discipline in its arguments to arrive at a logical conceptualization, not scientific mechanisms. Similarly, ethics (including humanism) doesn't rely upon scientific mechanisms either.
                    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                      So, does this mean that as an atheist single straight female my chances of finding a guy who sees the world as I do are not as bleak as I thought? Cool.
                      I'm trying to come up with a clever quip about how atheism is only part of the picture, but it's obviously too early in the morning.

                      Location is more important than I realized when living in SoCal. North Texas is a whole different scene. San Diego seems like it would be a good choice. Plus you have the wild animal park and zoo....

                      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                      How did you go from this ... to this ...
                      By understanding that science, religion, etc. are all attempts to understand our situation as humans. They are like a laser cutter and an obsidian knife...superficially very different, and some people may argue they are absolutely different, but at the end of the day they are both cutting tools. They are in the same class even though the results and materials they work with are very different.

                      Of course a stone knife works great when cutting through easy materials. Same with religion. Up to a certain level of understanding, religion gets the job done cheaply and easily. It ain't much use when you get to the bones though.

                      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                      There's no need, I'm sure you'll agree, to postulate a theory of some god to make a scientific observation about orbital mechanics.
                      If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If the only tool you have is religion, then it is necessary to use religious concepts to make natural observations. There are still, in 2012, a whole lotta people on this earth whose only tool is religion. For them, it is absolutely necessary to include the ideal of a god (or something similarly exonatural) to make observations about orbital mechanics.
                      Last edited by Him; 11-30-2012, 08:57 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Should a primal life include a belief in God ? Since the earliest evidence of mans existence god(s) have been depicted as a part of their life style. Why would you chose not to give weight to this aspect of the primal life style ? Could you be missing one ingredient in the recipe of all the ingredients that make up the primal life style.
                        Raise grass fed bison all natural. trying to gage this comunity to see if their is any intrest?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Tod View Post
                          Should a primal life include a belief in God ? Since the earliest evidence of mans existence god(s) have been depicted as a part of their life style. Why would you chose not to give weight to this aspect of the primal life style ? Could you be missing one ingredient in the recipe of all the ingredients that make up the primal life style.
                          Historically, your parenthetical "(s)" shouldn't have been. Adamant monotheism appears to have followed agriculture, perhaps is a direct result of the more stable and geographically limited lifestyle that agriculture imposes. If you want to take your thought to its logical end, you could argue that all followers of Abrahamic religions should abandon them for pre-ag polytheist/deist/etc views.

                          As for why... basically the same reason we don't quit our jobs and head for the wilderness to live a truly primal existence...we don't want to give up the things we value about modern existence unless there is a strong argument that we truly must. We don't want to give up agriculture, modern surgical practices, computers, and so on, we just want to choose a more beneficial path within current day existence.

                          Besides that, you've just invented a variation on pascal's wager. As P's W demonstrates, you CAN'T truly join a religion for ulterior motives because it's motivated by self interest. In other words, a self-serving lie. You can't profess belief in god on the hope of salvation because it's a lie. You can't profess a belief in a spiritual or deist world to be more primal because that would be another lie. You either feel a thing or you don't - faking it doesn't count.
                          Last edited by Him; 11-30-2012, 11:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I try to stay away from religious topics.

                            I grew up in the Lutheran church. Baptized, confirmed. I'm well knowledgeable of the basic tenets. I even remember a lot of the old-time Lutheran music. But I stopped going to church a long time ago. I would not date someone who was so into religion than they insisted I go to church. I do miss the music sometimes.

                            Anyway, I have had a lot of time out in nature to ponder the words of Jesus. The actual words, not the interpreted ones. I felt I came to a truer understanding of his words out there in nature and what I think he was saying is basically the opposite of what I hear being said by the church. I think Daniel Suelo comes closer to explaining what our Judeo-Christian culture truly worships and what Jesus was really trying to say. Look him up if you are curious. Try to find where he explains how the concept of credit and debt is the true basis of our religion.
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Not religious. Sorry, I'm married to another atheist . Best of luck to you though.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Him
                                If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If the only tool you have is religion, then it is necessary to use religious concepts to make natural observations. There are still, in 2012, a whole lotta people on this earth whose only tool is religion. For them, it is absolutely necessary to include the ideal of a god to make observations about orbital mechanics.
                                Well you got on this one, Him, I am completely convinced the reason I don't float off into space is because god is holding my feet to the ground

                                Nothing in science has ever lead me to a belief in any god. Likewise with Fr George Coyne, director of the Vatican observatory, about his religious beliefs and science: When Science and Religion Meet - UWTV.org

                                Tod:
                                Should a primal life include a belief in God ? Since the earliest evidence of mans existence god(s) have been depicted as a part of their life style. Why would you chose not to give weight to this aspect of the primal life style ? Could you be missing one ingredient in the recipe of all the ingredients that make up the primal life style.

                                Him:
                                Historically, your parenthetical "(s)" shouldn't have been. Adamant monotheism appears to have followed agriculture, perhaps is a direct result of the more stable and geographically limited lifestyle that agriculture imposes. If you want to take your thought to its logical end, you could argue that all followers of Abrahamic religions should abandon them for pre-ag polytheist/deist/etc views.
                                No, Tod makes a good point. Speculation: What if it is hardwired into human psychology to believe in a transcendent reality....to construct a mythology. It seems to me people generally....gravitate (no pun intended...OK maybe ) towards myth making about reality. Without even realizing it, plenty of proclaimed atheist do that with ethics. They are humanists arguing for Rights as if those Rights are some kind of universal imperative. You and I both agree (I think we do) there is no such thing as universal right within materialism. But of the debates I've had with atheists over the years, you are in the minority.

                                Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                                "Humanism is compatible with atheism[25] and agnosticism,[26] but being atheist or agnostic does not, itself, make one a Humanist. Nevertheless, humanism is diametrically opposed to state atheism.[27][28] According to Paul Kurtz, considered by some to be the founder of the American secular humanist movement,[29] one of the differences between Marxist-Leninist atheists and humanists is the latter's commitment to "human freedom and democracy" while stating that the militant atheism of the Soviet Union consistently violated basic human rights.[30] Kurtz also stated that the "defense of religious liberty is as precious to the humanist as are the rights of the believers".[30] Greg M. Epstein states that, "modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God".[31]"

                                So Kurtz was from an American culture proclaiming that another culture violated basic human rights. Without his saying so, that's him rejecting moral (cultural) relativism.

                                But that is exactly what secular humanism is, a religion without a god. Call it the newest mythology. In a materialistic word, one that excludes faith and transcendence, what is the scientific conclusion for "basic human rights?" If I'm understanding you correctly we both realize there ain't one. In the Jewish/Christian tradition god is a transcendent moral being. He transcends the natural world. Basic universal human rights are by necessity transcendent moral qualities. They transcend the observable natural world (dualism as opposed to materialism's monism). All science (sociology/anthropology) can do with ethics is make an observation about cultural values; it can't say those moral values are better or superior to any other culture's moral code. So here's the point: an atheist who argues for such Rights and then derides a theist for his/her belief in a god, because science can't explain the truth of that deity, is being inconsistent. Both this atheist and the theist believe in a transcendent nature. They just differ on the particulars.

                                North Korea is state sponsored atheism but mythology its population engages in is "Dear Leader" worship. NORTH KOREA 'Dear Leader' worship as the one religion - Asia News
                                Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X