The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Cliffy

#31

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Dec 17th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by SimpleSimon

Wow, a gnostic. I have never heard or read one in person before, although I had heard there were still some around. They jumped on the Christian bandwagon pretty early, as I recall, and were going full steam and writing their own gospels by the third century.

Well met.

Present day gnostics are everywhere.

--

SimpleSimon

#32

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Dec 17th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy

The atheists prayer: Lord, please save me from your followers.

What Christians can't seem to understand is that they are not the only deists on the planet, they just think they are the only ones with a direct pipeline to the Big G and their Big G is the only true Big G - a triad of Big Daddy, The Kid and the Holy Spook. Atheists and agnostics don't hate Christians, they just hate their self righteous arrogance, their always talking down to anyone who doesn't believe as they do in fairy tales and magic. Their constant judgements about how everybody who doesn't kiss God butt exactly the way they do are all going to Burn Baby Burn. Perhaps if they came down off their high horse and joined the human race, you know the one with flawed psyches, pimples and smelly poop, they might get a little more respect from the rest of humanity.
But don't fret. Soon you all will be in the big revival meeting in the sky while the rest of great unwashed fry for eternity when the Kid comes back and smotes the rest of us heathen.

BTW I am not an atheist nor an agnostic. And I would like to clarify that I am referring to the fundamentalist Christian evangelical types who give the rest of Christendom a bad name.

Talking down? I never knew what it was to be reviled and ridiculed and attacked until I met an atheist evangelist. And you know something? All that preaching and teaching that you revile I was raised with, and guess what? I discovered that I was a human being, with a free will, which they also taught me, by the way, and I could just walk away, which I did, for about thirty years.

So what's with the mocking words? It seems there is more to this cliffy. Talking about "Big Daddy, the Kid, and the Holy Spook" are offensive, but you know, in my years of experience I've invariably found that someone who really doesn't believe and has rationally rejected the Christian faith, normally has a much more relaxed perspective. Those who try to offend have another agenda, another motivation.

And don't say that it is because those terrible Christians try to "shove it down our throats." That's a canard that needs to thrown in the dust-bin of pop-mythology. Nobody has ever shoved anything down my throat I didn't want. When we have a totalitarian regime in place who persecutes those who don't tow the party line (normally atheistic) then we can talk about the shoving down of throats. Find someplace on earth today that does that and then ask if it is Christian.

And, if you study the Christian faith, you will find that they have a keen sense of humanity's flawed psyches, pimples and smelly poop. In fact, that is the whole point of the exercise. Theirs is an explanation for our flaws, an explanation for our human nature, and a means of reconciliation with God. And if they did not believe that it was the only way, then they would not need to believe at all. The two are natural companions.

How is it not possible to just simply say, no, I don't believe what you believe and I have no intention of believing it. That's what I say to the nice young Mormon missionaries that come to my door. I thank them for coming out, tell them I admire their zeal but no thanks. I don't mock them, even though I think they are in grave error.

As to heaven and hell, you said once elsewhere that it is a choice made here on earth (correct me if I mistook your meaning) and that is very close to what the Christian faith teaches. The metaphors from Scripture about being cast into the lake of fire are intended to focus the mind, I should think, but any good Christian theologian will tell you that if you want to reject God and you are consistent with that position until you die, then he will give you exactly what you want. His absence. Some have said that is a very good definition of hell. Others suggest that God cannot be absent from any place, being omniscient, so that hell is the opposite, the fire of being in his direct presence yet rejecting him. But beyond speculation, the Christian position is definitely that everyone gets what they want.

Quote:

As a small example of initiation, as I mentioned in a previous post, every tribal, indigenous culture had a process of initiation. No matter what form it took, the purpose was almost always the same, to destroy the childhood ego and to have the child, usually at puberty, be reborn into his or her adult responsibilities within that culture. To us it would seem barbaric and senseless to do that to a child. But the process was born of necessity because of the nature of the culture (hunter/gatherers) and the environment in which they needed to survive.

And you really believe that solved the problem of in-fighting and wars with other tribes? That is idyllic fantasy. As one wag put it, much of the life of the average aboriginal pre-European can be described as "nasty, brutish and short."

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss

What about war for freedom or peace?

Or even better, how about defense of the defenseless? By the way, that was the entire reason for the Crusades, after Islam had conquered most of what had been Christian for six centuries before the birth of Mohammed.

Cliffy

#33

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Dec 17th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by SimpleSimon

Talking down? I never knew what it was to be reviled and ridiculed and attacked until I met an atheist evangelist. And you know something? All that preaching and teaching that you revile I was raised with, and guess what? I discovered that I was a human being, with a free will, which they also taught me, by the way, and I could just walk away, which I did, for about thirty years.
--------------------------------------------------------

As to heaven and hell, you said once elsewhere that it is a choice made here on earth (correct me if I mistook your meaning) and that is very close to what the Christian faith teaches. The metaphors from Scripture about being cast into the lake of fire are intended to focus the mind, I should think, but any good Christian theologian will tell you that if you want to reject God and you are consistent with that position until you die, then he will give you exactly what you want. His absence. Some have said that is a very good definition of hell. Others suggest that God cannot be absent from any place, being omniscient, so that hell is the opposite, the fire of being in his direct presence yet rejecting him. But beyond speculation, the Christian position is definitely that everyone gets what they want.

I said heaven and hell are right here on Earth. And yes my rant was rather harsh. It happens some times. I'm not perfect.

I was brought up Catholic and have studied the bible from many different angles since I left the church. I have had religious discussions with many people of different denominations and different religions. I do tire of the evangelical types and occasionally they get do under my skin. But I was taught a long time ago, that people are, myself included, responsible for their own emotions. So I take responsibility for when I allow someone to get under my skin and conversely, I expect others to do the same. I do not take any responsibility for how others feel.

Quote: Originally Posted by SimpleSimon

And you really believe that solved the problem of in-fighting and wars with other tribes? That is idyllic fantasy. As one wag put it, much of the life of the average aboriginal pre-European can be described as "nasty, brutish and short."

And European history has not been nasty and brutish? The blood shed that came with "civilization" and its technology was staggering. There has never been an idyllic culture that I'm aware of but I have lived among people of different cultures and some are better than others IMHO.

Quote: Originally Posted by SimpleSimon

Or even better, how about defense of the defenseless? By the way, that was the entire reason for the Crusades, after Islam had conquered most of what had been Christian for six centuries before the birth of Mohammed.

That was just an excuse, like WMDs in Iraq. The funny part (in a sick sort of way) was that the Muslims had abandoned Jerusalem when they heard the crusaders were coming and the only ones left were Arab speaking Christians who the crusaders slaughtered because they didn't understand them. But the real reason for the crusade was the usual plunder and pillage thing.

SimpleSimon

#34

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Dec 18th, 2011

Quote:

And European history has not been nasty and brutish? The blood shed that came with "civilization" and its technology was staggering. There has never been an idyllic culture that I'm aware of but I have lived among people of different cultures and some are better than others IMHO.

I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't, in certain areas at certain times. The point I was making was that your description of the transition into manhood of pagan cultures was to assert that those cultures were somehow superior morally to our society. You said;

Quote:

In our society, we really have no such process, so the childhood ego remains in tack for most of our lives, reaping havoc on our fragile psyches. Jealousy, envy, hate, anger are all attached to that ego. In essence, none of us really matures beyond a dysfunctional infantile emotional state. We have short circuited the process that leads to emotional maturity by eliminating the initiation process. Now I have heard all kinds of arguments that say we have different ways of initiation but none is as effective as killing the childhood ego. It is a horrendous process that we can't seem to stomach.

All I was pointing out was that while some (perhaps that is not you) have tried to make out that the life of the aboriginal was somehow idyllic prior to the arrival of the Europeans, the truth is far from that. It had its high points, no question, but it was no moral paradise.

Quote:

That was just an excuse, like WMDs in Iraq. The funny part (in a sick sort of way) was that the Muslims had abandoned Jerusalem when they heard the crusaders were coming and the only ones left were Arab speaking Christians who the crusaders slaughtered because they didn't understand them. But the real reason for the crusade was the usual plunder and pillage thing.

For someone who claims to be a free-thinker, it seems you have been unduly influenced by what started as a Protestant polemic against the hated Papists and was popularized by such as Sir Walter Scott, but quite unfounded in the actual history of the time. You have to be careful of what you read as history in the popular culture born out of the public schools and carrying the traditions of religious partisans of the 16th century onward. Let me say, since you been raised a Catholic it would seem only fair to study history from more than just the perspective of rabid anti-Catholics, just as you would likely wish to study the history of Islam from more than the point of view of Muslim haters, yes?

And it is interesting as well, if you go back to the history told by the Muslims themselves of the Crusades, prior to the rise of the any political or social advantage in Europe to be gained from parroting the anti-Catholic propaganda created by the descendants of the Reformation, you will find that they considered themselves the victors and that it really was not a major issue. And if you compare that to the record of what actually happened during the Crusades, you will find that indeed the crusaders were remarkably unsuccessful at achieving their own goals, or maintaining any gains they made over time. To the Islamic world up until recently they were little more than an irritation and the last thing they did was regard themselves as victims. They were proud of their defeat of the Christians.

However, in interacting with the west in recent times it has become apparent that at least in North America, there is a deep guilt over the Crusades brought about by the false description of the goals and accomplishments of those Crusades. And, not to leave such a golden opportunity unused, Islam has run with their newly found victim status and helped to perpetuate the mythology because it tends to paralyze many in the west including many publicly educated leaders.

Hey, if it works, why not use it? You cannot blame them for helping to weaken their perceived enemies, particularly when those enemies are beating themselves with guilt based on a mythology. Why tell them the truth?

By the way, as to motivation for the Crusades there is ample and overwhelming evidence for the actual goals they had in mind. There is no need to repeat the mythology there.

Cliffy

#35

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Dec 18th, 2011

Quote: Originally Posted by SimpleSimon

I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't, in certain areas at certain times. The point I was making was that your description of the transition into manhood of pagan cultures was to assert that those cultures were somehow superior morally to our society.
All I was pointing out was that while some (perhaps that is not you) have tried to make out that the life of the aboriginal was somehow idyllic prior to the arrival of the Europeans, the truth is far from that. It had its high points, no question, but it was no moral paradise.

The point I was making had nothing to do with morals, which seem to a particular hangup of Christians. What I am talking about is responsibility, personal and collective. When Europeans arrived this was a paradise filled with wildlife and beautiful rivers, lakes, forests and mountains. Now we have leveled many mountains, cut down the forests, wiped out many species and reduced many more to near extinction. We have fouled the water and the air with our greed and stupidity because we have no idea what responsibility means.

Some may argue with how ecologically aware the indigenous people were, but the proof is in the pudding. Some say they slaughtered each other so they were just as immoral as the Europeans, but there were as many as 110 million people in the Americas before Columbus and within a hundred years of contact, there were only about 10 million left. Within another hundred years there was less than half that. If they were so busy killing each other, why were there so many of them?

SimpleSimon

#36

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Dec 18th, 2011

Quote:

The point I was making had nothing to do with morals, which seem to a particular hangup of Christians. What I am talking about is responsibility, personal and collective.

Could you please explain to me the difference? Isn't that the essence of morality? Just like with respect to dogma I think you are rejecting the category when you mean to reject a specific code.

For example, is the only reason you don't murder your neighbour, the fact that it is in the criminal code of Canada and carries a prison sentence? Or is it because you wouldn't do it even if the law had no problem with it? And at the personal level, is that not simply taking responsibility for your own actions and taking responsibility for the life of your neighbour?

So what then is the difference between that and the Christian who says "it is immoral to kill your neighbour, and oh, by the way, that is part of the natural law, found in societies all over the world, even in those who have never heard of Christ."

So Cliffy, it is not morality you are against, but the specific moral code of Christians. Anyone who suggests that our society, individually or collectively, did not take responsibility, whether or not it is true, seems to be just as hung up as any Christian, call it responsibility or call it morality.

What you are talking about is moral responsibility. What you are saying is that it was wrong to level mountains, it was wrong to deforest large tracts of land, it was wrong to pollute the air, the rivers and the land.

How can anything be wrong or right? It wasn't against the law, apparently. Bringing diseases from Europe that killed masses of Aboriginals was not against the law either, but was it right? Herding tribes into small worthless pieces of land was not against the law either, in fact it is still the law, as we are well aware recently, yet was it right?

So how do you talk of right and wrong? Those words are meaningless are they not? I mean, that is all morality is, the question of what is right and what is wrong. Taking responsibility is just another way of saying "morality." So who is hung up? Anyone and everyone who distinguishes between what is right and what is wrong, between what a human being ought to do, and what they ought not to do, between what a society ought to do, and what it ought not to do.

Whether we always adhere to our moral values is another question entirely. You said earlier;

Quote:

I'm not perfect.

Well neither am I. But you or I wouldn't even know that much without a moral code, a way to measure our perfection, now would we?

Quote:

If they were so busy killing each other, why were there so many of them?

Rhetoric without a context. I might as well ask you why their were so few of them before Europeans arrived. Perhaps it was because they were killing each other in inter-tribal war.

Cliffy

#37

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Jan 8th, 2012

What is reality? Does it really matter what you believe?

--

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Cliffy

#38

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Jan 9th, 2012

Star Trek Data explains quatum reality - YouTube

the Illusion of Reality consciousness amp quantum theory - YouTube

damngrumpy

#39

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Jan 9th, 2012

First of all you forgot the third element that creates war Trade.
Religion is of course a major contributor but only because of
course Gods on our side. There is a time when you have to
stand up for yourself as a nation. Nazi Germany didn't give a
damn about peace, human rights, or anything else. Of course
the allies as a group contributed to the trade sales to help them
build up to be able to do the job of war.
Dogma is the main essence for conversion, God is absolute,
and therefore there is not need to compromise period or so it
would seem.
Someone on this thread earlier asked if we would ask such
questions on judgement day, well as a matter of fact as people
we likely will, its our democratic right. Think about it, if God is
on our side he must support democracy which means he will
have to compromise and in fact we will have the right to defend
ourselves with regard to our sins and to do that we will need a
court order served on heaven in order to obtain facts from the
celestial freedom of information act.
If God is not on our side he does not support democracy and
therefore he is against the constitution of democracies and
should be deported to some nation that will accept him. Of course
once he is deported or extradited, he will be tried in an international
court for all the destruction he caused with his floods and fires
etc. He is going to go to jail for a long time. Insurance companies
will sue him for all those acts of God.

Dexter Sinister

#40

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Jan 9th, 2012

Cliffy, Data gets it wrong in the first clip, the second clip is mostly quantum quackery and mystic nonsense, as would be expected of anything that cites Edgar Cayce and the Illuminati with confidence and approval. Quantum theory is fully consistent with an objective reality that exists regardless of anyone's perceptions or expectations of it.

Cliffy

#41

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Jan 9th, 2012

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Cliffy, Data gets it wrong in the first clip, the second clip is mostly quantum quackery and mystic nonsense, as would be expected of anything that cites Edgar Cayce and the Illuminati with confidence and approval. Quantum theory is fully consistent with an objective reality that exists regardless of anyone's perceptions or expectations of it.

So you keep saying. Where's the proof? Just saying it is quackery doesn't make it so. Where is your rebuttal? Just because it doesn't fit into your square little logical box doesn't mean anything.

I prefer to live outside boxes where there are greater possibilities. I like to play with concepts and ideas and not restrict my mind to just logic, which I find can be drier than a nun's fart.

Spade

#42

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Jan 9th, 2012

A closed mind helps one sleep.

L Gilbert

#43

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Feb 9th, 2012

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Cliffy, Data gets it wrong in the first clip, the second clip is mostly quantum quackery and mystic nonsense, as would be expected of anything that cites Edgar Cayce and the Illuminati with confidence and approval. Quantum theory is fully consistent with an objective reality that exists regardless of anyone's perceptions or expectations of it.

I am not so sure of that.

Research lately, seems to have it that things can appear out of "nothing" and disappear back into it. Of course, they consider a vacuum to actually be something. --

As for the time component, there's a publication that's quite interesting called "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" - Brian Greene

Ah, just found a series from Nova on it here: --

Concerning the second vid, it started out sounding mildly interesting until it mentioned a Max Planck quote; "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" and the appearance of that goofy dolt, David Icke. That`s where my interest dropped.

Last edited by L Gilbert; Feb 9th, 2012 at 03:30 AM..

AyameTaylor

#44

Re: The View of a Non-Believer ~ DogmaCURE

Feb 9th, 2012

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy

Is that rhetorical? Violence begets violence. Peace is never attained by violence. It may postpone the inevitable for a short time, but can you remember one year of your life when there was no war somewhere?

So please don't take me the wrong way when i ask this but are you saying that people shouldn't fight for their basic human rights?

The idea that violence begets violence i can understand to a point, but the very idea of total pacifism doesn't leave much room for self preservation and goes against the very instinct of nature.

Okay, so this thread is a long and interesting one. The very title is a bit hipocritical if you ask me however.

DogmaCURE? Seriously?

The very idea that one would think that someone needs to be cured of the very fabric of their belife is astounding. This is the basis of all religion, to denounce the predisessor and take over their followers with their CURE, their ANSWERS, which in turn comes in to the a visicious cycle of re itteriting and retranslating, rehashing and remolding the ideas given from the original religion.

Do you see the problem with that?

Who cares if a christian believes in the holy trinity? the father son and holy ghost?
Who cares if a buddist believes they will be reborn in the center of a lilly enlightened?
Who cares if a pagan believes in the ebb and flow of nature?

The past is a history told by the victor, the truth of the mattter is simple- It is in the past.

Looking forward instead of trying to follow the age old tradition of CURING people of the religious dogma why doesn't everyone try acceptance?

I myself am a Pagan, a self proclaimed Witch in the true sence of the word, not the broom stick flying curse blabber fools that you see in all the fantasyed cartoons or movies. I am a person who believes in the ebb and flow of nature. I belive in the balance of all things, The negitive to the positive, the male to female, the cycle of death and birth: ever flowing, ever changing, never ending.

This is not the first faith practice i have come in to, in fact i have walked away from paganisim a number of times turning and searching other paths, reading trying to find what feels right to me.

I'll tell you something.

Each and Every religious establishment i have ever been in save TWO in my life time have turned me away or attempted to Cure me of some faith plague.

One was a church down the street from my mothers house when one reverand was there, and the other was a buddist temple.

Every Single Other Faith attempted to squish my curosity, or cure me of what ever dogamatic retorich i happened to be attempting to understand prior to walking through their doors.

Don't get me wrong; I hold no gruges against those who have done those things. I do not hold the faith as a standing whole in low regard because of the actions of a few.

Mormans, Cathloics, Christians, Jewish, Muslim even Buddism;

None of them felt right to me. There for i moved on. All of them have beautiful stories, and moral ideas that if listened to with a grain of salt are wonderful. Don't punish the whole for the crimes of a few.

I could go on to wicth hunts and other crimes of the past, Rip and tear in to belifes and demand the non-belivers be cured of ignorance or arrogance till i am blue in the face.

What good with that do?

Not a whole lot accept changing the colour of my skin which could prove entertaining.

Killing in general is i won't say wrong, because by my moral code you can't say killing a human is wrong if you your self are willing to slaughter deer or fox for nothing more then sport. Death is death, Murder is murder.

To kill out of NEED (protection, food.) that is one thing.
To kill out of arrogance or greed is another.

does that make me a hypocrite to my own faith which says "harm none in all that you do?"

I am sure most will say yes. I'll happen to agree with you, accept for one small point.

It is not self sacrifice to die for someone else's greed, someone else wants.
Total pacifism is only a path that begs for people to be slaughtered or dictated to.

To stand and rise you arms up claiming peace yet attempting to kill of religious beliefs is wrong.

I am fairly certain i have lost my point in all of this, but i'll just leave this off with the simple note of....

For a non-believer to attempt to Cure another for their beliefs is no better then those who attempt to Cure them of their herrasy.

(That is just my two cents on the whole topic as far as it pertains to the religion factor of this discussion.)

Similar Threads

Do we have to view God as an entity
by Dreadful Nonsense | Jun 8th, 2007

The View
by s243a | May 4th, 2007

The view from here
by Blackleaf | Apr 29th, 2007

How do you view the USA?
by CDN87 | Jan 29th, 2007

How to tell a believer from a non-believer?
by Machjo | Apr 16th, 2006