Who else sees the religion/atheism debate as a non-issue?

Originally posted by silent thunder

I cannot explain it rationally, even to myself, but the religion-versus-athiesm debate seems ridiculous and tautological to me somehow. In other words, it seems like a kind of non-issue.

Perhaps I'm simply bored of reading endless arguments on the topic,* but somehow it just doesn't strike me as all that important.

Pondering this a bit more deeply, I guess that when it comes to religion, I don't really *believe* as much as I *feel.* To me, this takes religion out of the realm of "belief" and into...well, a totally different kind of experience.

Questions like the scientific origin of the universe just simply don't feel to me like they have anything to do with the core of religion whatsoever. I am aware many on both sides of the fence will disagree, perhaps violently. But the feeling of the divine, the nobility and challenge of being ethical to one's fellow man, the experience of primal awe in the face of the divine, the sense of humility before something greater than oneself...this "feels like" it runs on one track of experience. Meanwhile Hard-headed, frontal-lobe-style rational scientific investigation of origins -- this seems a totally unrelated type of inquiry.

Like I said, I can't really explain it. Maybe one of you who can intuitively grasp what I'm reaching for here can do a better job.



*yeah, I know, I know, here I go creating another one...

Hello silent thunder-

you are asking the same question as we all do and it all has to do with math and not anything else. I will post the same as I did just now for another to see.

All you need to do is look at math. You are asking a question of positive and negative. First you must realize the math behind it. 1 positive times 1 positive equals a positive. 1 negative times one positive equals 1 negative. 1 negative times 1 negative equals 1 positive. No matter how many negatives there are in this world they will never win if you do the math.

reply to post by thegoodearth


1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642

In 1610, Century Italian astronomer/mathematician/inventor Galileo Galilei used a a telescope he built to observe the solar system, and deduced that the planets orbit the sun, not the earth.

This contradicted Church teachings, and some of the clergy accused Galileo of heresy. One friar went to the Inquisition, the Church court that investigated charges of heresy, and formally accused Galileo. (In 1600, a man named Giordano Bruno was convicted of being a heretic for believing that the earth moved around the Sun, and that there were many planets throughout the universe where life existed. Bruno was burnt to death.)

-----------------------------------------------------

Sometimes the future wakes up to truth.

A foundation of ethics - in no way needs to be connected to any god.

Ethics is a social behavior required when man civilized into groups. God is not required.

Belief systems of the supernatural nature do not belong in government.

Originally posted by Trudge

All you need to do is look at math. You are asking a question of positive and negative. First you must realize the math behind it. 1 positive times 1 positive equals a positive. 1 negative times one positive equals 1 negative. 1 negative times 1 negative equals 1 positive. No matter how many negatives there are in this world they will never win if you do the math.

Who determines what is positive and what is negative?

Seems you have a slight flaw in your philosophy.

reply to post by Annee


This is a very interesting analogy that I could expound on quite a bit, but I really don't see the relevence it has on this topic at all...

This is using the Roman Catholic Church as an basis for a government in the 1600's, I am assuming. And yes, they did issue an apology for the house arrest that Galileo was held under after he met with Pope Urban VIII, mocked him, alienated his very own supporters- the Jesuits- and published Dialogue on the Two World Systems , which he later recanted himself. The house arrest he was placed under, which his own friend, Nicolini, attested was very amenable, and which historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities."

At any rate, Galileo himself believed that the sun was the fixed center of the Universe. He was wrong. He was right in asserting the mobility of the earth.

Perhaps a good thing the Church did not bend to pressure to accept his views.

The Church has never claimed that ordinary tribunals, such as that which judged Galileo, to be infallible, regardless.

Abandoning all that to history, what does this have to do with anything?

Its not an issue till someone gets hurt.

And if people are offended of somebody with a different belief, all they need to do is grow up and get over it. (:

Originally posted by thegoodearth
reply to post by Annee

 

This is a very interesting analogy that I could expound on quite a bit, but I really don't see the relevence it has on this topic at all...

The only analogy is education - knowledge - awareness.

At one time God was Law. And if you didn't agree - you could be charged with blasphemy - - and possibly be put to death.

God does not belong in government - EVER. Government is like a business. A business of taking care of ALL citizens. Emotions and Beliefs should not be factors.

Are you aware of the ten commandments of Solon? 638 B.C.E

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

---------------------------------------------------------------

***** Hey - I know you are sincere in your posts. I tried to do some research to back up my posts - but: I'm nanny to my 2 1/2 year old grandson who's daddy died of Leukemia before he was a month old - - and I just had (yesterday) 2 molars pulled and implants inserted. I do stand by my posts - - - but I'm probably not relating well in response to your thinking.

reply to post by Annee


Ok. Now I see what point you are trying to make.

However, back to my original question, and while I sympathize with your passionately held beliefs and admire how you stick to them, it cannot change the fact that the United States was founded on Judeo/ Christian principles. While you (and millions of others) may feel that God has no place in government, the Founding Fathers of this country did not.

I personally (and I did comment on this in another post to someone else) feel that this issue really is a moot point at this stage in our Country's "evolution". And obviously this mindset is working out for us, as the state of the Union, the economy, and the youth of our country is reflective of this positive shift of consciousness.

Sorry to hear of your misfortunes~ Good Luck!

I hate this debate. It is silly for atheists to believe there is no higher power and that everything just happened from nothing. It is silly for religions to think that one needs to worship a diety in order to move on to a better afterlife. There is extremely little evidence to back either contention.

Just be a good person and try to do the right thing and Im sure whatever comes at the end you will fare pretty well. Put your own beliefs above others and you could be in for a rough ride.

reply to post by thegoodearth


I haven't actually discussed my beliefs here. Mentioned snippets here and there - but have not actually discussed them.

There are several threads on the foundation of this country. So not going there. You might find them interesting.

Today we have voted in political office: lesbians/gays/transgenders & even one atheist somewhere. Today we have lesbians/gays as clergy.

Would any of those people have been a part of the political system 200+ years ago? You know they wouldn't. Was there the option at that time to exclude a god from politics? You know there wasn't.

Integrity and ethical behavior is the core of who I am - - but I don't need a god for that. As far as I'm concerned the Excuse we behave in an ethical way because of a god - - is just that - - and excuse.

**** thanks for the Good Luck. Can I have positive energy too?

reply to post by Annee


Positive is all I strive for every day~ intentions for you sent with care and concern

Though we fundamentally disagree about the function of God and His existance, and His role in the shaping of our governmental doctrines, it has been wonderful to speak in a civil manner with you. I only wish everyone here could speak frankly without disintegrating into retorts and insults.

As a Taoist, (and a non-religious Taoist at that), I see that both religious minded fanatics and science minded fanatics are gonna have a hard time coming to therms with the new reality unfolding for us. When they see the complete and utter truth about Reality they will have to adjust their perceptions and their beliefs.

Yes. It is absolutely a non-issue.

However, I do enjoy debating the matter. I suppose In the greater scheme of things, I am really being quite irresponsible by even bothering with the notion even if I oppose it.

If I turn out to be wrong about anything you won't hear me griping.

reply to post by silent thunder


Well, some of us actually prefer to use reason and evidence instead of just *feeling* things and then accepting them for no particular reason. That's sort of why we have computers to post on the internet, because people used reason.

Huh, kind of cool that this old thread of mine was revived for whatever reason. Thanks.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


In response to your post, I would say you are setting up a false dichotomy: Reason and spirituality can perfectly coexist with no overlap or conflict because in their purest, most noble forms they deal with entirely seperate spheres.

Your comment reminds me a little of the logic behind a statement such as this: "We don't need to know how to play concert piano because some of us like to drive cars, and it would be very irresponsible and dangerous, not to mention impossible, to try to play the piano at the same time you drive a car." In reality, driving a car and playing a piano are activities that take place in two totally different realms of human experience, and there is no reason whatsoever that a human cannot master both skills and enjoy/employ them to their fullest effect.

In my humble opinion...