Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

History of religions and ideas and philosophie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LRB
    replied
    Well in an earlier thread, that alas went right down the toilet sadly, I attempted to discuss the thing we call 'mind'.

    Now to an expert in biology, all that is happening in my head is electro chemical processes. Not very exciting sounding though.

    Some of my behaviour I understand, but not all of it.

    I have often wondered about our mind though (and I think psychiatry thinks it knows too much about it).

    Not sure I would relate 'mind' to spirituality, but it might also just be unfortunate semantics occasionally.

    We speak of the 'soul' but frankly no one can see one, and we have even less proof of it's existence, than we do of god's existence.

    We say we are 'sentient' but what IS sentience? Do trees think? Some will laugh at the notion, but why would we say they don't? Just because we can't perceive it? There are many things my senses can't 'see', but I can detect artificially with a machine.

    And who knows, in the future we may well have machines that open up experiences we have not been able to see previously.

    I know that today we can witness a great deal more than humanity could witness 100's of years ago. Simple things today, were totally unknown at one time. Hell we thought the world was flat once.

    Leave a comment:


  • grosnain
    replied
    Spirituality for exemple could be the crystallisation inside "yourself" of something that you just learned but also integrated.
    Did something happened in you when you have understood the process that created the iron atom in your blood from a novae.
    Me yes.
    But you can have a similar experience with... day life insignifiant things that happen but for a reason or another change radicaly your way of living.

    Your will (not material) can change the chemical process in your mind (material). Here we are far away from god (religion) but close to spirituality.

    I'm talking to you as i see it, but i'm very far away of the truth, or my truth, or one among other truths because i have not so much worked on "myself".

    Leave a comment:


  • LRB
    replied
    Aahhhh ya ....

    "but should be in every human as a princip of beeing."

    Still too metaphysical.

    God was, and alas still is, just a flawed concept used as a form of gap filler.

    There is no god in me, not in the physical realm, and not in the spiritual realm.

    I am here because simple biology made it possible. The old male meets female and magic happens and 9 months later ya got me.

    Now if there is actually more to me, than the simple biochemical processes, none of it will have anything to do with a several thousand year old dude inspired by a great deal of musing and a particularly understandable lack of knowledge of the world which we know exists a long ways past our planet's boundaries.

    Earth, not only not the center of the universe, but it's a rather bland planet in a bland solar system with a relatively nice although minor star. In a typical galaxy which is not overly special in any fashion considering all the other galaxies we know are out there.

    When I die, I may well just full stop and decay and my atoms could conceivably end up almost anywhere in the fullness of time.
    It is nice to think their might be something 'else'.

    But the idea is no more special than the dreams I have at night when I have eaten too much too late before I have gone to sleep.

    But saying there is no god, is like yanking a child's blanky from them.
    You get a lot of hollering and crying and sometimes it's just quieter to let them have their damn blanky.
    As long as they are not trying to strangle you with it that is.
    Then I am all for taking it from them and making them grow up.

    Leave a comment:


  • grosnain
    replied
    Originally posted by les Brains View Post
    Too metaphysical.

    I am just me, I might be a lot more than I realize, but, I am only me regardless.
    As being, you are part of the creation, regardless.
    God is a means of making something else responsible. I don't think it's arrogant to say we don't need god, its actually rather brave in my opinion to let go of him.
    Yes, you don't need god and it's not arrogant. Also thinkin of "god" is irrelevant. But thinkin of you as part of univers open severals ways of knowledge.

    He's a security blanket I've grown out of needing.
    Yes, that is the difference between religion and spirituality. Religions can be seen as security blanket and bigoterie. Spiritual research is hard work (even inside religions !) and is more dangerous than secure.

    Leave a comment:


  • LRB
    replied
    Originally posted by grosnain View Post
    i think religion can't talk to science because of the Dogma, but religious or spiritual persons can.
    In that point of view god would not be "across the univers" and from outter space, but should be in every human as a princip of beeing.
    Too metaphysical.

    I am just me, I might be a lot more than I realize, but, I am only me regardless.

    God is a means of making something else responsible. I don't think it's arrogant to say we don't need god, its actually rather brave in my opinion to let go of him.

    He's a security blanket I've grown out of needing.

    Leave a comment:


  • LRB
    replied
    Originally posted by philiplaos View Post
    The more so since Stephen Hawkins has now declared that the creation of multiple universes is the inevitable consequence of gravity and does not reguire a creator God.

    I can't get my head around either concept!

    Philip
    A universe that never needed a beginning, sort of eliminates any room for creation.

    Leave a comment:


  • grosnain
    replied
    i think religion can't talk to science because of the Dogma, but religious or spiritual persons can.
    In that point of view god would not be "across the univers" and from outter space, but should be in every human as a princip of beeing.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipLaos
    replied
    Originally posted by les Brains View Post
    Carl Sagan's work Contact makes a good example of how we likely could put serious attempts at religion based dialogue in the same section as science.

    I don't think the two are equal or similar, but at the same time, both are attempts to understand what we don't know.

    And as Carl made fairly clear, in a lot of cases, we expect a lot of people to accept a lot of things, all on the basis of the 'informed' opinions of others.
    The more so since Stephen Hawkins has now declared that the creation of multiple universes is the inevitable consequence of gravity and does not reguire a creator God.

    I can't get my head around either concept!

    Philip

    Leave a comment:


  • LRB
    replied
    Carl Sagan's work Contact makes a good example of how we likely could put serious attempts at religion based dialogue in the same section as science.

    I don't think the two are equal or similar, but at the same time, both are attempts to understand what we don't know.

    And as Carl made fairly clear, in a lot of cases, we expect a lot of people to accept a lot of things, all on the basis of the 'informed' opinions of others.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipLaos
    replied
    Originally posted by grosnain View Post
    Science is in the library topic.
    Thanks! And I see a lot of the guys are hanging out there! Hope to put in my two-pennyworth!

    Philip

    Leave a comment:


  • grosnain
    replied
    Originally posted by philiplaos View Post
    Where's the science zone?

    I'd like there to be a 'Current Affairs (outside of politics)' forum. Until then, there's always the Barracks.

    Philip
    Science is in the library topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Nine Noble virtues of the Odinic Rite

    From Wikipedia article called Nine Noble Virtues

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Noble_Virtues

    e Nine Noble Virtues or NNV are a set of moral and situational ethical guidelines codified by John Yeowell (a.k.a Stubba) and John Gibbs-Bailey (a.k.a Hoskuld) of the Odinic Rite in the 1970s.[1]

    They are based on virtues found in historical Norse paganism, gleaned from various sources including the Poetic Edda (particularly the Hávamál and the Sigrdrífumál)[2], and as evident in the Icelandic Sagas).
    Contents
    [hide]

    * 1 Variants
    * 2 Nine Charges
    * 3 The Six-Fold Goal
    * 4 See also
    * 5 References
    * 6 External links

    [edit] Variants

    Odinic Rite

    1. Courage
    2. Truth
    3. Honour
    4. Fidelity
    5. Discipline
    6. Hospitality
    7. Self Reliance
    8. Industriousness
    9. Perseverance



    Asatru Folk Assembly

    1. Strength is better than weakness
    2. Courage is better than cowardice
    3. Joy is better than guilt
    4. Honour is better than dishonour
    5. Freedom is better than slavery
    6. Kinship is better than alienation
    7. Realism is better than dogmatism
    8. Vigor is better than lifelessness
    9. Ancestry is better than universalism

    [edit] Nine Charges

    The Nine Charges were, like the Nine Noble Virtues, codified by the Odinic Rite in the 1970s.[3]

    1. To maintain candour and fidelity in love and devotion to the tried friend: though he strike me I will do him no scathe.
    2. Never to make wrongsome oath: for great and grim is the reward for the breaking of plighted troth.
    3. To deal not hardly with the humble and the lowly.
    4. To remember the respect that is due to great age.
    5. To suffer no evil to go unremedied and to fight against the enemies of Faith, Folk and Family: my foes I will fight in the field, nor will I stay to be burnt in my house.
    6. To succour the friendless but to put no faith in the pledged word of a stranger people.
    7. If I hear the fool's word of a drunken man I will strive not: for many a grief and the very death groweth from out such things.
    8. To give kind heed to dead people: straw dead, sea dead or sword dead.
    9. To abide by the enactments of lawful authority and to bear with courage the decrees of the Norns.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipLaos
    replied
    Originally posted by les Brains View Post
    The forum already has a science zone though, so supporting a religious section is not an unreasonable request.
    Where's the science zone?

    I'd like there to be a 'Current Affairs (outside of politics)' forum. Until then, there's always the Barracks.

    Philip

    Leave a comment:


  • grosnain
    replied
    On time again a political subject end about religious questions : Death penalty in politic central.

    Half of wars comes from religions and or ideas and philosophy. Could be interesting to have specific threads to help the community.
    Sometimes stupid decisions (for us) are done because religion or ideas, and against warfare theory or common sens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pilsudski
    replied
    I usually try to avoid religious and philosophical discussions here, but I'm willing to contribute to this endeavor.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X