Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, 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.
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.
I certainly agree with the first paragraph of your post.
Cheers.
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobLet 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.
I don't think you quite understand what indoctrination means.
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.
Originally posted by SuzianneLike the Icon.šµ. 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!"
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".
Cheers Jalapeno.
Originally posted by black beetleAnother 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).
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 Happyšµ
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.
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.
Originally posted by TaomanWhat else ya got 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.
Originally posted by whodeyFirstly, let's deal with this canard.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey may accept evolution like I do, they just do not describe it the same way
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.
some others do, you know, that devil in the details sort of thingy. š
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou accept a quasi limited view of evolution. For example you don't accept cetaceans evolved from land based mammals.
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. š
Kelly
Do you accept all life evolved from a common ancestor?
Originally posted by Proper KnobHe 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.
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.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf 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.
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.