Post #202,903
4/11/05 4:55:46 PM
|
I have nothing to say about Astrology
I am not sure it's a religion at all.
Buddhismn and Christianity certainly started with something real. I have no idea how Christians and Buddhists defend their Holy Scriptures (do Buddhists even have one?). I am not going around screaming that they are fools or got duped by evil conspirators. I have my doubts as to whether they understood what they were shown. But it's up to them to figure out what really happened.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #202,905
4/11/05 5:14:21 PM
|
And your evidence for this is...?
I'm not at all sure that any religion started with something real. I see that there have been cults started in people's lives, some successful. I see that there were cults started in the 1800's that are flourishing religions today, for instance the Mormons. I see that there were branches of Christianity started 500 years ago that survive to this day. Some over demonstrably trivial things. (Various branches of Protestantism, and a demonstrably trivial one is the Anglican Church, founded for Henry VIII's marital convenience.)
I see no reason at all to believe that the rules that govern human behaviour over the course of a few thousand years differ from those of a few hundred. Therefore I see no reason to believe that there is a fundamental difference between those events and events in Mohammed's, Jesus Christ's, or Moses' days. (In fact I don't believe that there is a fundamental difference, that's why I'm an atheist.)
If there is anything obvious that I'm missing, please inform me. If my beliefs happen to offend you, as far as I'm concerned that is your problem. Plenty of religious people can accept that I believe this and content themselves with believing that I am wrong. After all this does come down, at some point, to faith. But my beliefs seem to me to be reasonable.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #202,906
4/11/05 5:40:52 PM
|
Your beliefs do not offend me
The manner in which you _may_ choose to express them _may_ offend. Mr. Carlin cirtainly expresses his beliefs in an offensive manner.
Branches of Christianity do not count in this discussion - they are simply about interpretation of the existing record of events.
Mormonism and Islam are more to the point, and here I really don't know what to say. May be it's not a matter of all or nothing, may be there are degrees between conspiracy theory and real divine inspiration. I personally think that Islam is a case of self-delusion, and Mormonism a case of deception. But I may be wrong. I certainly will not try to prove (or even to tell) that to a Mormon, as long as he/she leaves me alone. More iterestingly, God works in misterious ways, and good may come out of illusions and even out of conspiracy.
There is nothing "obvious" that you are missing. It's not my job to convince you that God exists, much less that He is what I think He is (and obviously He is not what I think He is). As long as you don't call me a fool duped by some con artist who lived 4000 years ago, I'll be happy to keep my peace.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
Post #202,907
4/11/05 5:50:56 PM
|
I think the expression is calculated
He is trying to make a point on issues that the majority have already decided on and will not think further. By putting his arguement crudely and in confrontational terms he may get some to think further. I don't think he's going for a 180 degree conversion. He's trying to get people to think about the unthinkable.
He built his business on irony. Now he's an addict. Happens.
|
Post #202,910
4/11/05 7:23:35 PM
|
I don't get what u mean by: rules that govern human behavior
What rules are you referring to that you think have not changed? And are you saying other people believe those rules HAVE changed?
|
Post #202,913
4/11/05 7:45:54 PM
|
I'm saying that...
I don't see the longevity of a belief system as necessarily deriving from its correctness or being based on something real. I can offer examples suggesting that this is true for belief systems lasting a few hundred years. I see nothing wrong with extrapolating this to belief systems that are a few thousand years old.
This puts me in disagreement with people who seem to believe that all belief systems that are old enough had to have a basis in fact or they wouldn't have lasted.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #202,919
4/11/05 8:12:46 PM
|
so the fact that darwinism is over 100 years?
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #202,921
4/11/05 8:58:23 PM
|
Of course
My statement was again that, I don't see the longevity of a belief system as necessarily deriving from its correctness or being based on something real.
That applies to any scientific claim as well.
That doesn't mean that any particular claim is necessarily incorrect and based on something false. That particularly does not mean that when said claim is something that has been through the kind of stress-testing that science routinely does.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #202,962
4/12/05 4:32:49 AM
|
An important distinction is being elided in this view.
(as in most 'religious' exercises in our milieu.)
The Question (even the lesser-set which Carlin is addressing in his own particular style) may not be reduced to Yes/No,
"Do you believe in 'God'?"
In framing that Question as it does, Christianity also appends the peculiar? attribute of 'God' - that of a 'Personal God' - an entity with Whom (!) one may presume to have a 2-way 'conversation' / ask-favors of, or other.
Rejection of that postulate is not identical to answering the Question above: "No".
This contretemps is addressed with something approaching clarity in many Eastern philosophies (and all religions have a correlative philosophy). The Question of "assigning [attributes] to 'God' ??" is also well explored, East of our Eden; hardly ever comes up - in the West. So far..
Missing this distinction guarantees that any religo- topic shall conclude with a retreat to polar opposites / more of the usual digital oversimplification.
In brief - rejection of Christian dogma is not tantamount to having disposed of the conundrum: "Is there A Creator?" At. All.
Only a subsequent Socratic dialogue might reveal an individual's philosophy-to-date on That Question. So let's try to keep the presumptions Clean, even if we cannot achieve Clarity.
Ashton
|
