Going out with a bang...
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
For most people, I think it defines their cultural identity or ideology more than it defines how they live.
That's an interesting observation. So "Christian America," for instance, consists of many people who may not think of themselves as someone who can recite the Apostle's Creed with conviction, but who still live his live in a manner partially shaped by a a kind of generic Christian thinking.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
That's an interesting observation. So "Christian America," for instance, consists of many people who may not think of themselves as someone who can recite the Apostle's Creed with conviction, but who still live his live in a manner partially shaped by a a kind of generic Christian thinking.
I think we're on the same page. For example, if you take the results of surveys on what percentage of Americans self-identify as "Christian" and then compare that to the percentage of Americans who actually live a "true Christian lifestyle" I think you'll find quite a large discrepancy; meaning that although they identify themselves as Christian, they don't live a "true" Christian life. But I suppose that, yes, they do still live by a kind of generic Christian thinking. But I think that's because, inherent in human beings, is a kind of innate Christian ideology. Perhaps that's better put as what we identify as Christianity (and religion in general) is an expression of an innate human characteristic, (in my opinion) of biological rather than of divine origin. So instead of being some kind of divinely inspired story, Christian ideology is an expression of a deep all-too-human characteristic. Take me, for example (admittedly a rather biased sample). I abide by what are basically the tenets of Christianity, but in no way do I accept divinity in any form; I'm about as athiest as they come.
-
Oakman wrote:
That's an interesting observation. So "Christian America," for instance, consists of many people who may not think of themselves as someone who can recite the Apostle's Creed with conviction, but who still live his live in a manner partially shaped by a a kind of generic Christian thinking.
I think we're on the same page. For example, if you take the results of surveys on what percentage of Americans self-identify as "Christian" and then compare that to the percentage of Americans who actually live a "true Christian lifestyle" I think you'll find quite a large discrepancy; meaning that although they identify themselves as Christian, they don't live a "true" Christian life. But I suppose that, yes, they do still live by a kind of generic Christian thinking. But I think that's because, inherent in human beings, is a kind of innate Christian ideology. Perhaps that's better put as what we identify as Christianity (and religion in general) is an expression of an innate human characteristic, (in my opinion) of biological rather than of divine origin. So instead of being some kind of divinely inspired story, Christian ideology is an expression of a deep all-too-human characteristic. Take me, for example (admittedly a rather biased sample). I abide by what are basically the tenets of Christianity, but in no way do I accept divinity in any form; I'm about as athiest as they come.
73Zeppelin wrote:
is an expression of an innate human characteristic, (in my opinion) of biological rather than of divine origin.
Survival of the species suggests that behaving in a Christian manner should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. But I wonder if there isn't a crowd-factor that makes people look at all of their interactions through the filter of the Prisoner's Dilemma. I have read (no citation handy) of experiments where by allow white rats to breed freely and providing them with sufficient food but no larger a habitat, the population density seems to trigger a suicidally aggresive behavior not only in young males, but in grown ones, breeding females and even offspring. In such a society, paranoia becomes a survival characteristic - but for the individual, not necessarily for the species. Although (and I am extrapolating, I don't remember reading this) if the behavior disappears when the overcrowding does, it might, indeed, be a kind of racial survival characteristic - and explain mankind's propensity for going to war.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
is an expression of an innate human characteristic, (in my opinion) of biological rather than of divine origin.
Survival of the species suggests that behaving in a Christian manner should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. But I wonder if there isn't a crowd-factor that makes people look at all of their interactions through the filter of the Prisoner's Dilemma. I have read (no citation handy) of experiments where by allow white rats to breed freely and providing them with sufficient food but no larger a habitat, the population density seems to trigger a suicidally aggresive behavior not only in young males, but in grown ones, breeding females and even offspring. In such a society, paranoia becomes a survival characteristic - but for the individual, not necessarily for the species. Although (and I am extrapolating, I don't remember reading this) if the behavior disappears when the overcrowding does, it might, indeed, be a kind of racial survival characteristic - and explain mankind's propensity for going to war.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I hadn't come across that one. I have "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" on my bookshelf. It's a little dated, but maybe I should actually read it...
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Some might say that this life is ALL that matters
So the choice is to live like there is an afterlife or not? What do you see as the major differences between those two life styles? (Ignore any trolls who hand out predigested opinions for the umpteenth time.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
I don't think that there's much of a difference. Except that perhaps people with depression tend to hold the former opinion more often.
-
I don't think that there's much of a difference. Except that perhaps people with depression tend to hold the former opinion more often.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think that there's much of a difference.
People who believe there is an afterlife and people who don't act pretty much the same way? Then Pascal was right. You are far better off believing that not. Because if there isn't, and you believed, so what, but if there is and you didn't - oh oh.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think that there's much of a difference.
People who believe there is an afterlife and people who don't act pretty much the same way? Then Pascal was right. You are far better off believing that not. Because if there isn't, and you believed, so what, but if there is and you didn't - oh oh.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
People who believe there is an afterlife and people who don't act pretty much the same way?
On average, yeah, I think so.
Oakman wrote:
Then Pascal was right. You are far better off believing that not. Because if there isn't, and you believed, so what, but if there is and you didn't - oh oh.
Nah, I don't buy that. There are compelling reasons to not believe in any of the Earthly religions, and then you have pretty much no chance of pleasing the Creator of the Universe to an extent great enough to warrant eternal bliss, with the dubious assumption that such a thing exists. Unless you can believe in everything at once.
-
Oakman wrote:
People who believe there is an afterlife and people who don't act pretty much the same way?
On average, yeah, I think so.
Oakman wrote:
Then Pascal was right. You are far better off believing that not. Because if there isn't, and you believed, so what, but if there is and you didn't - oh oh.
Nah, I don't buy that. There are compelling reasons to not believe in any of the Earthly religions, and then you have pretty much no chance of pleasing the Creator of the Universe to an extent great enough to warrant eternal bliss, with the dubious assumption that such a thing exists. Unless you can believe in everything at once.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are compelling reasons to not believe in any of the Earthly religions,
There are pretty compelling reasons to continue to ask, "In there was no outside-of-history creator, how then did the universe come to be?" Note please, that I did not ask about the mechanism, but how the mechanism was set in motion. Believing in the Big Bang occurring spontaneously, or simply saying that the Universe has always been here has always seemed to me a greater leap of faith than to postulate a higher power - perhaps a plethora of them. Also please note that I did not suggest that any man-made religion has gotten it right. I cannot imagine that a being who could create the universe could be comprehended by anyone on earth - or would worry about being comprehended. Perhaps we all are, collectively, God and the earth is where We go when We sleep?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are compelling reasons to not believe in any of the Earthly religions,
There are pretty compelling reasons to continue to ask, "In there was no outside-of-history creator, how then did the universe come to be?" Note please, that I did not ask about the mechanism, but how the mechanism was set in motion. Believing in the Big Bang occurring spontaneously, or simply saying that the Universe has always been here has always seemed to me a greater leap of faith than to postulate a higher power - perhaps a plethora of them. Also please note that I did not suggest that any man-made religion has gotten it right. I cannot imagine that a being who could create the universe could be comprehended by anyone on earth - or would worry about being comprehended. Perhaps we all are, collectively, God and the earth is where We go when We sleep?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
There are pretty compelling reasons to continue to ask, "In there was no outside-of-history creator, how then did the universe come to be?" Note please, that I did not ask about the mechanism, but how the mechanism was set in motion. Believing in the Big Bang occurring spontaneously, or simply saying that the Universe has always been here has always seemed to me a greater leap of faith than to postulate a higher power - perhaps a plethora of them.
Well, yeah, of course - there's always a good reason to ask questions about anything. I don't think that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously, and I doubt many scientists do either, but I'm not gonna just go "a god must've done it!" and think that it's a good explanation. I'll need some sort of a reason.
Oakman wrote:
Also please note that I did not suggest that any man-made religion has gotten it right. I cannot imagine that a being who could create the universe could be comprehended by anyone on earth - or would worry about being comprehended.
Yeah, but in regards to Pascal's Wager, it's a lot harder to place a bet on a horse when you can't see the horses, don't know anything about them and don't even know if they exist or not.
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps we all are, collectively, God and the earth is where We go when We sleep?
I dunno.
-
Oakman wrote:
There are pretty compelling reasons to continue to ask, "In there was no outside-of-history creator, how then did the universe come to be?" Note please, that I did not ask about the mechanism, but how the mechanism was set in motion. Believing in the Big Bang occurring spontaneously, or simply saying that the Universe has always been here has always seemed to me a greater leap of faith than to postulate a higher power - perhaps a plethora of them.
Well, yeah, of course - there's always a good reason to ask questions about anything. I don't think that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously, and I doubt many scientists do either, but I'm not gonna just go "a god must've done it!" and think that it's a good explanation. I'll need some sort of a reason.
Oakman wrote:
Also please note that I did not suggest that any man-made religion has gotten it right. I cannot imagine that a being who could create the universe could be comprehended by anyone on earth - or would worry about being comprehended.
Yeah, but in regards to Pascal's Wager, it's a lot harder to place a bet on a horse when you can't see the horses, don't know anything about them and don't even know if they exist or not.
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps we all are, collectively, God and the earth is where We go when We sleep?
I dunno.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah, but in regards to Pascal's Wager, it's a lot harder to place a bet on a horse when you can't see the horses, don't know anything about them and don't even know if they exist or not.
But if you know that there is a race going on, you can infer that there is something racing and that there will be a winner.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I dunno.
Then perhaps you should live your life as if it were the case, until you can prove differently.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah, but in regards to Pascal's Wager, it's a lot harder to place a bet on a horse when you can't see the horses, don't know anything about them and don't even know if they exist or not.
But if you know that there is a race going on, you can infer that there is something racing and that there will be a winner.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I dunno.
Then perhaps you should live your life as if it were the case, until you can prove differently.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
But if you know that there is a race going on, you can infer that there is something racing and that there will be a winner.
How do I know that there's a race going on? Maybe it's just a bunch of people milling, about betting on anything they can think of just to pass the time. So they don't have to focus on the uncomfortable question of why they're there in the first place.
Oakman wrote:
Then perhaps you should live your life as if it were the case, until you can prove differently.
I dunno.