1. Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    20 Sep '10 11:42
    Originally posted by whodey

    Having said that, it sounds as though you percieve those who have certain belief systems have very little reason to believe the way they do. You belittle them by poking fun at a religious text that you seem to find silly and inconsequential. As a result, mahy have percived those of faith not only to be of weak mind, but incapable of critical thinking. It may amuse you but I think you will quickly find that such arrogance is nonproductive.
    Whodey, There are many fine belief and value systems based on sacred writings, including the Christian, Islamic and Jewish faiths. That I don't always agree with those beliefs is also fine. The difficulty I have is being coerced by emotional or other forcing tactics to "believe" anything. Belief, if it is not free, is not really belief or faith at all. Such things must come from the heart.

    I certainly agree with the first paragraph of your post.

    Cheers.
  2. Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    20 Sep '10 11:46
    Yeah Kelly, that's one I missed - peer pressure, or the herd instinct. One of the hardest actually.

    Cheers.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    20 Sep '10 11:474 edits
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    I don't think you quite understand what indoctrination means.
    Let me give you a sample of what I am talking about. Not to long ago within the scientific community a scientist made a claim that he thought that ulcers were the result of bacteria in the stomach. At first the man was lambasted and raked over the coals for challenging the accepted notion that bacteria simply could not survive in such a hostile environment. This is the result of indoctrination. Granted, the scientific community slowly came around as some dared question the status quo. However, keep in mind that there were no political nor spiritual forces that influenced such indoctrination, rather, it was simply a matter of personal pride that seem to have been at stake. Now lets consider other challenged scientific notions that do have political and/or spiritual implications. Lets consider those who challenge evolution. Have you ever seen the movie "Expelled"? Those who challenge evolution do not only attempt to bruise egos, they challenge a secular humisitic notion that there is no God. As a result, there are very high stakes indeed for defending the status quo at any price. After all, their enitire world view is being challenged, not just a scientific theory. Another example is global warming. Ever hear of climatgate? There is evidence out there to suggest much of what we have accepted regarding global warming should be quesitoned. However, there are huge political implications at stake. Governments around the world have already adopted cap and trade bringing in huge amounts of money to be used at government discretion. As a result, if you are a scientist and wish to challenge such scientific theories, you are in a fight of your life against the powers that be and Big Brother as well as the entrinched scientific status quo.

    So basically what I am saying is that we all have beliefs systems in place for whatever reason. They are belief systems because some things simply cannot be proved or not proved such as the belief in God. What you then must do is choose one belief system so that other data can be processed rationally. You then begin to form other belief systems thus building and reinforcing your original belief system. As a result, the more you build the more investment you have in your original belief system and the more it behooves you to defend those foundation blocks at all costs. If not, the destruction of the original belief system might mean anhiliation of your previous work and thought. In short, it would be like starting over and who likes to do that? This goes for the scientist who has devoted his life to one scientific theory who owes his livelyhood to that belief or perhaps the theologian who can say the same thing.
  4. Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    20 Sep '10 11:59
    Originally posted by Suzianne

    If you think you're talking about signs of Indoctrination, you haven't seen nothing yet. Only this time, I suspect, you will be on the side of those doing the indoctrinating. In fact, you already may be, if you call it "freedom".
    Like the Icon.šŸ˜µ. Your thought did make me think about how such terms as "freedom" have ironically been used to coerce people. Its right to be wary when such fine terms are used to back up questionable actions, but I don't think it negates the possibility of real personal freedom at least. And I trust that will be a "mark" that matters. It will to me anyway, no matter what they do to me. Not too sure who you are talking about, but it doesn't matter, there is always some darkness or other around. Now I'll get on my soapbox... may the light of freedom shine brighter the darker it gets!"
    Cheers Jalapeno.
  5. Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    20 Sep '10 12:06
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The difficulty is that if we are "stoned" it is very hard for us to recognize it.
    Hey man, I recognize lots of stuff then! lol!
  6. Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    20 Sep '10 12:37
    Originally posted by black beetle
    In the cherry exists a cherry tree with all its cherries and all the cherry trees within them, thus everything is neither real, nor not real, nor both real and no real, nor neither;

    All the gospels and all the sutras of all the religions together cannot hold a candle to the one who has a clear mind. But how can you get a clear mind when you have to k ...[text shortened]... ones who understand their nature are not obliged to follow nobody;
    May All Beings Be HappyšŸ˜µ
    Another pointer to me about getting too carried away even with "freedom" words, (see Jalapeno's post) Yes, freedom is also 'neither real, nor not real, nor both real and not real, nor neither'. (as also with the atomic particles of quantum science).

    You know about the Emptiness that is full.
    It is amazing (and perfect), that if it wasn't "empty", nothing could be! But that's perhaps another discussion. Even beliefs are "empty" or when examined cannot be held tight or complete in themselves, totally separate from everything else. I think "furry" beliefs is the way to go conventional. And coercion becomes laughable finally.

    Cheers bb.
  7. Joined
    24 May '10
    Moves
    7680
    20 Sep '10 13:03
    Coz its my first time I'll say just once (and from now on take it as read), thanks to everyone and their responses to the post. Appreciated, even if disagree. I'll endeavor to follow this forum closely and chuck in too to other posts. Have to improve my chess too but. I like RHP.

    Cheers.
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102622
    20 Sep '10 13:16
    Originally posted by Taoman
    Coz its my first time I'll say just once (and from now on take it as read), thanks to everyone and their responses to the post. Appreciated, even if disagree. I'll endeavor to follow this forum closely and chuck in too to other posts. Have to improve my chess too but. I like RHP.

    Cheers.
    What else ya got Taoman?
  9. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    20 Sep '10 13:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Let me give you a sample of what I am talking about. Not to long ago within the scientific community a scientist made a claim that he thought that ulcers were the result of bacteria in the stomach. At first the man was lambasted and raked over the coals for challenging the accepted notion that bacteria simply could not survive in such a hostile environment. ...[text shortened]... y who owes his livelyhood to that belief or perhaps the theologian who can say the same thing.
    Firstly, let's deal with this canard.

    Those who challenge evolution do not only attempt to bruise egos, they challenge a secular humisitic notion that there is no God.

    You've made the incorrect assumption that accepting evolution means a rejection of God. This utter tosh. There are Christian denominations who accept evolution, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

    As for the rest, i'll get back to you later.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    20 Sep '10 14:08
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Firstly, let's deal with this canard.

    Those who challenge evolution do not only attempt to bruise egos, they challenge a secular humisitic notion that there is no God.

    You've made the incorrect assumption that accepting evolution means a rejection of God. This utter tosh. There are Christian denominations who accept evolution, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

    As for the rest, i'll get back to you later.
    They may accept evolution like I do, they just do not describe it the same way
    some others do, you know, that devil in the details sort of thingy. šŸ™‚
    Kelly
  11. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    20 Sep '10 14:18
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    They may accept evolution like I do, they just do not describe it the same way
    some others do, you know, that devil in the details sort of thingy. šŸ™‚
    Kelly
    You accept a quasi limited view of evolution. For example you don't accept cetaceans evolved from land based mammals.

    Do you accept all life evolved from a common ancestor?
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    20 Sep '10 14:35
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    You accept a quasi limited view of evolution. For example you don't accept cetaceans evolved from land based mammals.

    Do you accept all life evolved from a common ancestor?
    No, not a single common ancestor.
    Kelly
  13. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    20 Sep '10 15:06
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    No, not a single common ancestor.
    Kelly
    That's the key element to evolutionary history. If you don't accept that, then i don't see how you can claim to accept evolution as you did in an earlier post.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Sep '10 07:02
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    That's the key element to evolutionary history. If you don't accept that, then i don't see how you can claim to accept evolution as you did in an earlier post.
    He doesn't accept "The Theory of Evolution" as in "we all evolved from a common ancestor", but he does accept that life currently evolves. I see nothing wrong with the way he said it.
  15. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    21 Sep '10 09:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    He doesn't accept "The Theory of Evolution" as in "we all evolved from a common ancestor", but he does accept that life currently evolves. I see nothing wrong with the way he said it.
    If we're being precise, he should i say i only believe in micro-evolution. Which is all he's willing to accept as far as i can understand after talking to him.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree