Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584116 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
If I can find six very different Creation stories, six different Gods and six different after-life scenarios would that count?


Hardly.  I'm thinking more in terms of archetypes, spirits, the notion of something beyond our physical reality.  The perennial philosophy, in other words.  You're thinking in terms of extrinsic differences.  I'm thinking in terms of an intrinsic core to all of them.  Furthermore, can you find me a religion without a creation story?  I can, but I'm not telling.

Quote:
which appear similar as they have some of the same roots. Then you look into Buddhism (no God - no afterlife), Hinduism (many Gods - many lives) and then we can go into the more obscure native religions that have even less in common if possible.


Would you consider reincarnation an afterlife?  If so, then Buddhism qualifies.  Also, while it doesn't have a personal God, it does have a realm beyond the physical.  Also, most Hindus believe in the idea of an Ishvara, a supreme God from whom all other gods emanate, so they are not strictly polytheistic.  As for native traditions, I actually find Native American spirituality to be quite compatible with Christianity.  Many Native American traditions speak of the "Great Spirit" who is within and beyond the world(see: panentheism).  Other native traditions are often animist in nature, believing that spirits reside in humans, animals, and plants.  This concept is shared by Shinto, Hinduism, and Paganism, and has even been considered by European philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas.  I also find it interesting that we can even speak of "tribal religions."  They obviously have enough in common that we can group them all into one category. 

While there may be no single feature that all religions and cultures have in common, there seem to be a set of features of which they all possess some, if not most.  My contention is that there seems to be a sort of tablet from which each culture develops its unique beliefs.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584124 -

Silversoul said:
Would you consider reincarnation an afterlife?  If so, then Buddhism qualifies.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that reincarnation is not part of the central tenets of Buddhism.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: deCypher]
    #9584167 -

deCypher said:
Silversoul said:
Would you consider reincarnation an afterlife?  If so, then Buddhism qualifies.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that reincarnation is not part of the central tenets of Buddhism.


There are some Western materialists who see Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion, and thus try to strip it of its more supernatural aspects.  I don't believe you will find such sentiment among those who are brought up in Buddhist countries.  Technically, though, Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" to reincarnation to emphasize their concept of anatman (no-self).


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584220 -

Quote:
While there may be no single feature that all religions and cultures have in common, 


Actually there is. Most all want to beat the shit out of those not in accord with their beliefs. :minigun:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584237 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Actually there is. Most all want to beat the shit out of those not in accord with their beliefs. :minigun:


Damn Jainists always starting riots! :mad2:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584243 -

Bottom line: you are not going to take my challenge and instead play vague, wishy-washy word games - a P&S first!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584260 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Bottom line: you are not going to take my challenge and instead play vague, wishy-washy word games - a P&S first!


Correction:  I do not agree to the terms of your challenge, due to our disagreements on what constitutes a significant difference.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584273 -

Why am I not surprised that you would conveniently overlook the word 'most' and choose one of the few exceptions? Gotta love honest debate.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584279 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Why am I not surprised that you would conveniently overlook the word 'most' and choose one of the few exceptions? Gotta love honest debate.


Where did I overlook the word "most"?

By the way, I love how whenever there is honest disagreement or misunderstanding, you imply that your opponent is being duplicitous.  Honest debate indeed!


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584307 -

I was v-e-r-y specific.

Up to 39 declined Swami/OC Challenges to date.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584313 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
I was v-e-r-y specific.


Where?  And about what, exactly?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584360 -

Now you are just being difficult for no apparent reason. Go back and reread.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584391 -

I see you being specific on the types of differences you would consider pertinent to the challenge.  I specified that this was not what I had in mind when I made my statement about the similarity of religions, and then you imply that I am being duplicitous and evasive because I wouldn't accept your terms.  I still can't see what instance of the word "most" I was ignoring.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584650 -

Religions have to have some similarity in order to be religions.  However, there are some pretty wide variations among them.  Some are preceptorial; others are not, some are credal; others are not, some are cosmological; others are not, some are theistic (poly or mono); others are not, some are revelatory; others are not.

Is the primary difference one of metaphysics?  Or do you have something else in mind?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #9584734 -

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Religions have to have some similarity in order to be religions.  However, there are some pretty wide variations among them.  Some are preceptorial; others are not, some are credal; others are not, some are cosmological; others are not, some are theistic (poly or mono); others are not, some are revelatory; others are not.

Is the primary difference one of metaphysics?  Or do you have something else in mind?


Well, my premise was that every culture has developed religion, and these religions share certain common features.  They don't tend to have winged dragons from Neptune because they all work from the same template.  Perhaps I was being a bit overly simplistic.  What I see is an evolution of religion from animist tribal religions to more complex polytheistic concepts to monotheism, or in some cases a sort of nontheistic supernaturalism such as in Buddhism or Taoism.  My point is they all seem to build on the same starting template, and each development transcends and includes its predecessor.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584811 -

No personalisms.~V


Better yet, go take 7 dry grams of your favorite hallucinogen and compare the ideas of metaphysics and science in your brain. I'm sure western logic will make a lot of sense then.


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


My blog, please support by giving it a look whenever you can, even if it's not interesting to you.

Edited by Veritas (01/10/09 10:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9584955 -

Quote:
My point is they all seem to build on the same starting template, and each development transcends and includes its predecessor.

As far as I can tell, every religion originated with attempts to explain the phenomena observed in conscious experience, and the origin of conscious experience itself.  That the capacity for such inquiry would lead to such systems seems natural, and it seems that with time we are seeing a progression away from belief in some singular transcendental power and towards a refined understanding of complex natural processes.  So I can't understand what you mean by there being some single "starting template," aside from self-aware experience, which could be only be an emergent property of the processes the awareness seeks to examine.


--------------------
“Strengthened by contemplation and study,
I will not fear my passions like a coward.
My body I will give to pleasures,
to diversions that I’ve dreamed of,
to the most daring erotic desires,
to the lustful impulses of my blood, without
any fear at all, for whenever I will—
and I will have the will, strengthened
as I’ll be with contemplation and study—
at the crucial moments I’ll recover
my spirit as was before: ascetic.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: deCypher]
    #9584965 -

deCypher said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: The universality of faith suggests that non-belief is not the default stance of humanity.


This is a limited perspective coming after thousands upon thousands of years of held religious beliefs.

At what point did nontheistic apes become theistic men?


I think this is a limited, or finite perspective, but it makes sense. "Human" is what I call a talking ape. Language, symbol comprehension, "concepts" of self. "Me", "I".

I have come a long way from dogma, but "I" often still talk to "myself".

Also, you can bet I still curse at computer hardware, and might even have a small conversation. Sometimes I debate taping my mouth shut in certain situations, because what I know this is. Referring to any insubstantial other, "myself" or "God" is all the same dogma. This a dogma of language.

Sometimes I will laugh when I am the only one in the room.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9585010 -

Quote:
I still can't see what instance of the word "most" I was ignoring.


You list one exception to counter my claim of most. :congrats:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: 'No Atheists in a Foxhole' Fallacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #9585065 -

Quote:
the notion of something beyond our physical reality


I play hard, but fair. My premise (as usual) was testable and clear. This is so ill-defined as to be impossible to determine who is correct.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Fellow Atheists / Agnostics
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Atheist 9,840 97 08/31/07 02:51 PM
by RedNucleus
* Philosophical Fallacies spud 3,059 16 05/13/04 02:12 AM
by Jellric
* The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Swami 9,895 83 08/26/13 02:35 AM
by Lingabhakt
* atheists really do believe in God
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 axl 6,124 108 02/06/10 04:06 PM
by Poid
* Total number of atheists to deliberately fly planes into something.
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 2,167 48 04/26/10 08:56 PM
by moi
* Template shift cosmic trippy shit stuff gettinjiggywithit 1,437 10 10/26/04 12:03 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Atheists - which Gods do you not believe in?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AsanteM 7,598 79 01/21/09 11:44 AM
by AnxietyDrive

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,987 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.017 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.