Star Stuff

Hi! I've been reading on Dawkins forum. I'm kind of pooped so I'll check  your links later.

 

What does Dawkins (or do you) think about our thoughts being very powerful and collectively powerful too as in these videos of Louise Hay? I think I'd classify these as philosophy altho there may be a scant reference to the divine. The idea is that we create our own reality by the thoughts we think. I don't have fixed opinions. I suppose perhaps we grab on to and take hold of whatever seems needful to us at the time?  (Or the old adage when we look at the past we recognize that we did the best we could at that particular time?)

 

Louise Hay helps an awful lot of people who have a negative self image. She was abused as a child; she's had cancer etc.so she searched for a way to heal herself from within. She turned  her stinkin' thinkin' around.  I don't think anyone should pounce on her for trying to improve her life do you?

 

 

Star Stuff,

 

I, too, reject all supernatural claims at this point (I'm just skeptical enough of my own skepticism to leave the door open in case something "supernatural" proves to be otherwise). Everything we know and experience is within nature. If telepathy, ghosts, etc. became provable and study-able through science, then they are, by definition, no longer supernatural :-).

 

That said, I also believe in the importance of awe and wonder and find plenty of that in what science has shown us. Indeed, quantum theory, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. are perhaps even more wonderful than any of the "supernatural" phenomena. So, I use "religious" language and ideas in exploring my relationship with the Universe. I call the Universe "Divine" not to reflect a belief that it was created by a supernatural entity, but because I feel that something as complicated and beautiful as the Universe is worthy of that term. I read and study religious literature, including the Bible, because there is wisdom in there that may not be found in science. In the end, I have Stephen Hawking on the same shelf as The Bible for a good reason.

From that first video, it appears to basically be a clone of "The Phoenix Seminar" from the early/mid eighties by Brian Tracy.  I have gone through that material numerous times and it is very good.  It does not entertain the supernatural, and offers some great tools for living life to the fullest.

One of the concepts offered is that "all thought is causation", and I can see how that can be valid, to a degree. (I think about winning the lottery all the time but it ain't happening - lol).  The idea is derived from the "law of attraction" which simply suggests that you draw into your life, people & events which are consistent with your thoughts.  Again, no magic; if you are upbeat & positive, or pessemistic & negative, you will naturally draw that into your experience path.

The Phoenix seminar (12 hours on video) covers a LOT of ground and it has been a gold mine for me.  It talks a lot about self responsibility, and how taking 100% responsibility is crucial to mental health.

Here's a snippet of a newer version:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8288072956492329195

.

 

Thanks Mendalla, great post.  The only thing I think I have difficulty with what you said is how the bible holds much "gold" for us today.  I can see some nuggets of mediocre wisdom in Proverbs, but there doesn't appear to be much more in the bible than what one would expect from people of that time.

I really don't see the attraction compared to what we have at our avail today on the bookshelves.  The difference is, that the gold-mine of material on our bookshelves today requires more work and self responsibility, while the bible seems to off-load everything to an imaginary higher power, including the whole "scape-goating" idea that the responsibility of one's "sins" can be dumped upon another.

I've offered a link to Hitchens' video on that before, but here it is again:

Part 1: 

Part 2: 

 

.

And Dawkins et al are "Enemies of Faith". What's your point?

Star Stuff: your quote:The Phoenix seminar (12 hours on video) covers a LOT of ground and it has been a gold mine for me.  It talks a lot about self responsibility, and how taking 100% responsibility is crucial to mental health.

 

Wow! This sounds really kewl. I'll have time this week and I'll  paw and dig  to see what I can learn.  I watched the snippet. Thanks!

 

Just show a spark of integrity and watch the video.  You just might find my point in there.

 

Ever read Ecclesiastes? Or, indeed, read the Gospels with an open mind? Hell, even Paul isn't as bad as some make him out to be. Have you read other interpretations of it, such as Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time? I think that relying on Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to interpret the Bible for you is going to naturally lead you to certain conclusions about the book. I find that they, and some other atheists of their ilk, interpret the Bible just as literally as the fundamentalists and do so purely because any other interpretation doesn't give them a windmill to tilt at. Try reading it for yourself. Try some other commentators, not just Borg. Reading the Bible in a serious, thoughtful way with an open eye on the historical and religious context in which it was written can open some real doors. I think you're tending to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyhow, that's my take on it and YMMV and all that.

 

How do you know that I haven't? How do you know that I haven't read any of Dawkins books? How do you know that by reading Dawkins books and watching his videos that I have not been challenged? Hell, even that "Zeitgeist" movie made me "scrutinize" my beliefs. And lo and behold, my faith is stronger than ever. I know that really bugs you and you must think me an intellectual dullard because I don't think like you. I've been called worse things by better people.

 

You know nothing of me or my integrity. How far do you have to climb down from that high horse you sit on? Get bent!!

 

Sounds like consumingfire has been been consumed by the fires of rage.  :o)  This is about open conversation, when someone questions your faith as a "good christian" you think you would have a more peaceful tone.  But then that is what those of us who lack faith have come to expect from the "faithful".  Can you say the Crusades or Spanish Inquistion?  :o)

 

So, because he was angry at being condescended to and insulted, you equate him with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?  I know that the internet lends itself to shallow, viscious attacks based on nothing but a need to prop up one's ego, but that's an impressive leap you have made there.  Good one.

 

Yet another who thinks that they have me all figured out. Nice try. You have known me for what, zero seconds. Sorry I don't conform to YOUR standards, which is something that I'm just not too concerned about.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I tried at humor, not to sound like I have you figured out.  I just wanted to clear that up....  because of RevMatt...  :o) 

 

I agree wholeheartedly...cms

 
I never mentioned the Zeitgeist movie as, while making many good points, does have a few problems.

Well, as faith is believing things for which there is no evidence, why do you feel that having more and more faith is a good thing?  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: "I've looked at the evidence for my beliefs, found it to be vacuous, but because I am so invested in it, I'm holding it tighter than ever."

 
No, I do not think that you are an intellectual dullard because you don't think like me, I just think that you and anyone holding fast to a supernatural account of reality (whether that be religion or tarot cards), is being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

Why do you think that is?

 

Then how is it that you know that I am worse than those better people who called you some bad things?

Is that one of those "fruits of the Spirit"?

I wonder if it would be more accurate to put it this way:

"The Spanish Inquisition: The original faith-based Initiative."

Star Stuff,

What of where religion makes no supernatural claims, as in "transcending nature"?

There can be religion where things some feel are "supernatural" are acknowledged as folklore and/or myths.

Religion can be pro-science.

It sounds like all we're talking about then is behaviour.
 

It's beyond that:

The religion that is afraid of science, commits suicide. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

That quote you offered is problematic on so many levels, mainly on it's understanding of the word science.

 

Star Stuff,

The quote was simply pointing out that not all people believe science is the end all be all. There is much more than simple scientific facts to life and the living of it.  

You stated that religion without the supernatural, to you, seems to be merely behaviour.

I would say that when someone says they believe in g/God, you may be better served in asking them to define the g/God they believe in. There is a difference between pagans, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc....

Theism doesn't depend on how one defines "god".

Theism can occur outside of religion and some religions are atheistic. You can be a theist without religion and religious without being a theist. Theism alone is does not make a religion. Theism is common in religions but not

The "something" sacred does not have to be supernatural and God is not mandatory for their to be a religion.

Buddhism is considered a religion. Taoism, Jainism and some mystical forms of Hinduism are also a-theisistic.

Judaism does not have a God that violates the laws of nature. Jewish laws make room for technological and biomedical advances. My experience within Judaism  not only to respected science, but used it in explanation of religious thought or tradition. Abraham was the first to go beyond finite. Like, God is called "the First Cause" -- the Prime Mover -- the dimension that has no other dimension preceding it.

Greek gods were often not supernatural.

Humanism has also been granted religious status in some courts.

So, maybe you should find out what religion people are or what g/God or gods pethey do or don't believe in.

 

Nope. That's my human nature telling you to get bent.

 

I think you may have the wrong person there RonVB.

 

CF is a fundamentaalist Christian, and he and I don't often agree theologically, but he's not what I would call a fundie. He's a reasonable person (most of the time anyways), and he likes pie.

 

There's a few raving fundies on the board, but there's a lot of good Christians too. Some more fundamentalist, some more liberal.

 

We also have a few Atheists that tend to be a bit abrasive and fundieish, even with those it's not necessary to be (and a few really pleasaant folk of the atheist persuasion too, I should add).

 

In amy case, please do consider that Star Stuff can be a bit abrasive sometimes, and sometimes he gets abrasive answers back because of it. I suspect that may be his intent sometimes, I don't know.

 

P.S.

Sorry to be talking about you as if you werenm't here SStuff. I meant no disrespect. Tense is sometimes difficult to manage in this medium.

Are you willing to listen to the long list of wars committed in the name of politics, or power, or greed, or wealth?  There are more forces at work in this world than simply religion and science, you know.

edit - why the frack is this whole thread in italics?

           

In my time as a soldier, one thing became abundantly clear to me. Wars are rarely, if ever, about what they're in the "name of". Whether it's in the name of religion, or land, or oppression, or freedom, or macaroni and cheese dinners...

 

Wars are rarely fought in the name of money, but in almost every case, that's the real reason. It matters very little whether that maney is dollars or drachmas, or the last bit of marrow in that tasty looking antelope leg... chase the real reason down, and you'll almost always find yourself looking at money.

I completely agree.  Many wars are over politics, territory, resources, nationalism, etc.

Could you answer my question please - or acknowledge my point?

 

I think the problem may be that you missed MY point.

 

I was not trying to say that Religion never caused wars, or that science does. I was trying to point out that your statement was just one side of the coin. You neglected the other side.

 

The reason, I suspect,  that religion has a worse reputation thatn science in this regard, is simply that religion has been around a lot longer. Give science a few more hundred years and I'm sure there'll be lots of greedy bastards trying to use it as an excuse for war.

I didn't include all of the other reasons for war's because I thought it was patently obvious.

 

 
The reason, I suspect, that you would prefer to believe that, is that you are religious.

Please understand what science is:

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

After reading that, do you still feel that science is a new thing?

Really?  You are sure?  Why a few hundred years?

 

Oh Stardust..

 

I do believe you may have missed some of my other posts on the subject. I am a proponent of science on this board, as anyone can tell you.

 

I also have a degree in science, with my particular specialty being marine invertebrate morphology. I do know what science is, thank you.

 

I'm starting to wonder if the premise isn't as important to you, as the conflict. You do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, for pretty much everyone. Of course that is speculation on my part, I would never claim to know what is going on in your head better than you do. However, I am more likley to be on your side than any other non-Atheist here, and I'm not sure why you are so adamant with me. Please be assured that I have called to task previous posters who have tried to blame wars on Atheism.

 

If I might be so bold, I'd like to offer you a suggestion. Be prepared to disagree and stand by your premise, by all means. But be also prepared to agree where you can find it, even if you don't like the person, even if it means you have to dig a little to find common ground. Also, cultivate allies among the middle road. People who are already on your side won't be building your bridges.

 

That's all I had to say. Take it or leave it as you like, it's just advice. Myself? Well I'm looking forward to being challenged by your points and opinions.

Oh my brilliant Witch ! Your rep. on this board is that you are truly brilliant. We all agree. But you slipped up this one time (only once). You mixed Star Stuff up with stardust in your above post. It keeps happening 'cause of course we're both stars.....

It's, um, Star Stuff.

 

 
That may be your impression so far, but it is not true.  I've made numerous conciliatory comments.  Yes, it is speculation about my person, but why go there?  Isn't this about ideas, claims, etc?  Forums are a terrible venue for knowing someone.  There is just too much that is lost in personal communication.

 
Well, I don't feel like I was being adamant, just addressing what you said.

Cheers.

 

DOAH!!!

 

I apologise to you both.

 

God kills a few brains cells now and again, just to keep me humble.

Don't worry, Witch; I did the same thing...cms

I'd hate to think what might result if I mis-spelled the word "Witch!"

(heh-heh)

Yeah guys, something tells me Star Stuff  might not like getting mixed up with me! 

 

AW.... but I was thinking perhaps we could do a duet together:

 

http://www.alighthouse.com/thelighthouse.htm

 

Star Stuff :

 

I like teasing you.......................................>>>>>>>>>> running away to hide..............................................................>>>>>>>

 

Oh pshaw... nothing reeeeally bad, I assure you. Nothing a little henbane and rosemary couldn't cure on a frost night.

What, no eye of newt?

Sorry, but I'm all out of swamp daisy right now, but henbane we got loads of that.

Ya, we got a "Henbane World" store near us.

Is that right next to "Tongue of Dog Depot"?

Don't be rediculous.  How could a store specialize in Tongue of Dog?

They have monopoly, obviously. Plus they carry a little Belladonna under the counter (shhh)

Witch - it seems you're trying to say that war is always about economics - some form of economic power. Yes? My concern is that religion has, continues to be, and will likely persist for some time to come, a terrifyingly simple pretext for those in a position of influence to sway the masses. This begets the question--if religion is used to serve whatever persuasive force of the day, can it still be considered a truly positive force in the world? Certainly wars will always be fought - we're only human - I've yet to find anyone who would disagree. What would change, is the pretext. I'd like to see how leaders of the past could convince their subjects to toss their life and their children's lives away for the sake of a personal feud, an unsettled debt or some other economic triviality. Chaos would likely have ensued, and revolution not long afterwards. Again - I'll ask, at what point does religion - an organizing social control mechanism - become a more negative force rather than positive? 

 

 

Hey Witch. Would horny goat weed work?

 

I think religion has become a negative control mechanism already.  Look at suicide bombers....  they blow themsleves up thinking that they are going to have all their sins forgiven and they will go instantly to heaven.  And then look at the growth of fundamentalist christianity in the US and it's slower growth here in Canada.  And yes I say GROWTH, because in London, Ont. where I live there are now 4 mega churches in a city of 350,000.  This fundamentalist movement in the states teaches bigotry against homosexuals, and that global warming is not a concern because "god will provide for us".  In the USA there are fundamentalist christians being trained to take political office and further their "cause".  Hell, even our current PM is from fundamentalist christian background.  The funny thing is, the faithful won't admit to religion being used a control mechanism, and religion is a strong motivating factor that those of us who lack faith can't understand.  But us non-believers are in a intreresting position of being able to see through religions thin veil to the truth of what it is.  And that's not to say that religion can't be used a force for good, but if religion is such a good thing why has so much blood been split on the name of god over the years?

In the "Encyclopedia of Wars" by Charles Philips and Alan Axelrod, ;(which goes back to all the recorded historys of wars) 1,763 wars are documented and only 123 have been classified as "religious" conflicts. Accordingly that makes only 7%  of  all recorded wars as having a "religious" affiliation.

The United States has been involved in 17 wars and it was only the recent "War on Terrorism" that had any religious affiliation.

So how is religion the cause of most wars?

I gotta say that made me chuckle.  I really like the saying....

"ATHEISM - A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION"

If you are arguing that without religion, governments wouldn't be able to justify going to war, I'd say that was a bit of a stretch.  What about patriotism and fear?  Can patriotism be said to be a positive force in the world when it is used as an excuse to dive into other countries with guns blazing?  I'd say there was pretty strong evidence that people are willing to risk their lives if they are told "you go to fight for our freedom" and "those people hate us because we are free/american/democratic/etc."

 

In the end, if people are willing to kill based on religion, likely they will be willing to kill for some other "good" reason.

shalom

For the wars lately (last century and this one), I'd have to agree, sortuv.

 

But remember, in the current US ventures, the prior governments were empowered by religous groups. You could argue for 'who was manipulating whom' there, but large christian voting blocks were complicit.

 

And that is where faith-based belief systems become dangerous, politically. They can easily be sold on one issue (eg. abortion) and ignore the fact that they're supporting a high technology international killing machine. Have you seen the budget for the US armed forces? You could feed/house/cure every child in the country for that money!