ecco
Veteran Member
If you put someone on ignore, what happens? Does it mean you no longer see what the person is posting?
Gee, I'd never do that. I'd sure want to see what the person has to say about me.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Gee, I'd never do that. I'd sure want to see what the person has to say about me.
ecco
Veteran Member
I found it interesting that it made no mention of "higher education" or "university" or "science".
Many people have a pretty good handle on reading and writing by the tenth grade. I'd be willing to bet that "knowledge about other religions and cultures" is handled in house in the JW equivalent to Sunday School and Bible Classes.
ecco
Veteran Member
Bible: There was a Flood that covered the entire earth about 4000 years ago.
Science: There was no Flood that covered the entire earth about 4000 years ago.
That looks like the basis of a competition to me.
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes. That’s one of the reasons why I’d approach any philosophy with certain amount of skepticism.
No philosophies are the ultimate source of information or knowledge.
One of the philosophies I have concern with is metaphysics.
I find that a few people here treat metaphysics as if it foremost philosophy with answers to everything, at least one of them think metaphysics and science are synonymous at time, and at other times better than science.
Continuing on with another line of thought this thread inspires, another nut to crack out of that nut bowl sitting on my table.
Proselytization.The fear I have been primarily looking at in a fear vs. faith comparison is an existential fear. Dread of the Abyss, meaninglessness to one's very existence. Existential Despair, in other words. Everyone confronts this in life and grapples with it at one level or another. For most, as they distract themselves with activities and concerns of life, that question is pushed out of the way, but it still is ever-present like the uniformly distributed background radiation from the Big Bang.
For some, that question is much closer to the surface, and its tensions create an existential anxiety. Angst, is the term the Existentialists use to describe this overall tension. For others still, there comes a direct confrontation with this, facing the Void, or the Abyss head on, and pass through that veil of terror of nonbeing to find liberation from the fear of it, which has been present and affecting everything in life. This is what "salvation" is really about. Other familiar terms for that is Enlightenment, Awakening, Satori, Freedom, Liberation, etc. It is our individual confrontation with the Unknown, and being liberated from the fear of that. It is a death experience that confronts us as in our whole being.
So how all of that ties into proselytizing, is that as compensation, or rather an avoidance of that ultimate confrontation with the Abyss, people try to find meaning in other things. Meaning in belonging ranks quite high, because there is safety in group bonds. One is accepted by others, when you follow the rules, and that gives meaning to one's own existence. Without it, there is no true sense of self where we find absolute meaning without the other. "Hell is other people" Sartre said, and I think the meaning becomes clear. Our meaning is found outside of ourselves, and that creates Fear, or Dread.
Bring back what I said about developmental stages now. In that basic stages of structures of consciousness from Gebser, you have archaic, magic (tribalism), mythic (ethnocentrism), rational (Modernity), pluralistic (Postmodernity), and Integral (Post-postmodernity, or Meta-modernity). At the mythic stages, this is the ethnocentric stage. One's sense of identity is tied to be in the group.
It creates a certain "fiction" whereby one can trust others outside their immediate circle of acquaintances. It creates a system of "us and others", or outsiders, pagans, heathen, foreigners, immigrants, etc. (cf. today's political climate). There is a great impulse driven by this belongingness need to fit in. People within these systems look for similar features they can relate to in others, making them part of the group.
Trying to get others to believe as you do, is driven by this existential insecurity, that others who are like you will protect you from that dark unknown growling out there in the bushes at night, with only the campfire and your friends to keep you feeling relatively safe from that predator just beyond where light can reach. The closer to tribalism we are, the more afraid of the dark we are. We are exposed to that terror of the Abyss. Therefore, the more safety in number compels us to look for others like us, who we can tell are just as afraid as we are. If they believe like us, then we are no as alone anymore. "I'm with God's people!", becomes a salve, an appeasement of that fear. We believe.
On the other side of that, because the drive for an exclusivist, us vs. them reality is so high, a drive for conformity to set, rigid, and authoritative rules which decide who is in and who is out, non-conformity is sternly rejected. "You're either with us, or against us". And so with a system which generates this tone, it's efforts to seek more members will reflect that. "Come join us and be loved. We pray you don't end up in hell like those others who hate our God". It is very black and white, true or false, God or the Devil, good vs. evil in its structure.
I'll make a quick footnote to this, before I let this digest some. I see this same thing with those who have left fundamentalist camps, becoming disillusioned with the prerational beliefs of the mythic structures as they themselves are having the rational stage start to come online, realizing easier rational targets such as "Noah's Ark can't possibly be real! How stupid!".
That this same black or white mentality carries over from their fundamentalist programming they are still running. It's like that saying, "you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy. Changing what one believes in, doesn't necessary change how one holds those beliefs. It very much can be just simply flip sides of the same coin.
My thoughts exactly. Now I can respond to his posts, and others see that he is not responding back. What does that make him look like?
It may have been the best thing that he could have done for me.
How many classes do you need to take to learn the party line of "all religions and all people that are not JW's are wrong and working for Satan. You could probably do that lesson in a two minute CBT on your laptop.
Your summary of Camus is hardly well-considered. You have to understand the context. I found someone responding to someone who called this quote "cowardice". It fits with what I said about the Old School Atheists, like Sartre and Camus, versus "debunker" atheists such as Dawkins and his offspring the neo-atheist movement. It was a metamorphic expression of the concern of his own atheism, regarding the need and importance for morality to be mainted.
The fact you miss this, underscores that diversion between the old-school atheists and the neo-atheists, who just think destroying beliefs by finding contradictions is the great achievement of reason.
Here's what that poster summarized:
Unfortunately, the previous writer obviously knows very little about the philosophy of Camus. Camus was an atheist yes, but he was also very concerned with atheism and the lack of morality that could possibly result from it. His main qualm with the church was their over complication of morality, which he believed was a very simple truth of life that one must abide by. His intention of the quotation concerning God above is to express his fundamental belief that morality cannot be abandoned. Camus was an atheist, but for those of you that love him for cynicism you have the wrong guy. He does not think life has a fundamental point and thus "we must imagine Sisyphus happy" (The Myth of Sisyphus), but not get caught up in its pointlessness. He has dark leanings, but he is forever trying to escape them and focus on living in the joys of a life free of contemplation; hence his love of sports and activity. If you are looking for a philosopher who hates religion try Nietzsche, but Camus and Sartre are both very respectful of the ability to chose to religion if it is done wisely. In fact, they find their lack of faith depressing in some works. To say that only "a COWARD" would say something like that is to be proud and not understand the depths of the absurdity and hopes of redemption that Albert Camus struggled with. If you desire further proof, look at his college thesis; it concerned Augustine and Plutarch, two fundamental Christian theologists and philosophers that Camus felt a great affinity for. Before making such claims, please know what you are talking about.
Talk:Albert Camus - Wikiquote
I wasn't citing them as "ultimate sources of knowledge". I don't think in those terms. That's what fundamentalists who look for answers outside themselves do. That's what gives birth to Scientism, as the flip side of Biblical Authority does. I only cited the French Existentialists as examples of the contrast between thoughtful atheism, versus neo-atheism. These were deeply considerate thinkers, not just "debunkers" who can easily pick apart myths like Noah's Ark as non-science, like that shows how smart they are.
Hah! And you have made my point! You think this is a sign of great atheist insight and wisdom? Being able to see that Noah's Ark and the myth of the Garden of Eden can't possibly be scientific realities, is elementary school level debunking. It's the self-congratulations of a 4th grader about how much smarter he is than his sister in 1st grade who still believes Santa is real. While the 4th grader may be right, his own thinking, and maturity, has a long, long, long ways to go yet.
Neo-atheism, exemplified by those like Dawkins, impressives me very much like that 4th grader congratulating himself for being so much smarter than his 6 year old sister. They assume religion just to be about "stupid stories" that can't possibly actually be real. Compare that to actual atheist thinkers who consider the deeper ramifications of what a lack of a theistic belief has upon the individual in a culture. Then there are considerations that go beyond that as well.
I think laughing at a mythology, shows an immaturity of the emotions, as well as the intellect. Of course the story isn't literal history and science. That's not the issue. It's "laughing" at it, that is.
What I say has quite a lot of depth of reason going on it in. That you don't comprehend it is not a reflection of my thoughts, but of yours. It sounds like "blather" to you. Which says something. You should start there, rather than attacking my intelligence. BTW, I generally report posters who pull our personal insults like this. I'll let you slide this time.
Easy. Existentialism began as a philosophical response to logical positivism, which believes that reason alone will bring the light of truth to mankind, that humans are rational creature and reason and science will save us. That is what others call "Scientism", which is a philosophical belief that Science will save us. The Existentialists recognize that humans are not at the core rational thinkers. In fact they saw just the opposite, that humans are irrational actors.
I build upon that in my own thoughts, (which you'll call blather in an attempt to defend yourself because you can't comprehend them), realizing that reason and rationality are simply tools of the mind, but that intuition, gut feelings, emotionality, and spiritual awe, are all factors as well. Science gives only one aspect of that total being a voice or a language, but it is an act of irrationality to hand over all authority of Truth to that one tool of the mind.
Dear lord in heaven!
Why would you think I am a fan of Ken Ham??? You must not be reading my words! No wonder you call it blather. You skim right over the surface of them and fill it with your own nonsense. The "blather" you are seeing, is your own thoughts reflecting back of the surface of my actual words which you are not reading. This too is irrational.You didn't say it. You also didn't deny it just now.
Last edited:
Patriottechsan
Member
I posted this already in another thread. I think it fits here as well. So here it is.
Well for some reason I couldn't get it to copy on here. It's from the Evolution & Creation are both Faith based.
Well for some reason I couldn't get it to copy on here. It's from the Evolution & Creation are both Faith based.
ecco
Veteran Member
You say my summary is "hardly well considered" and then you write about someone you found who responded to something someone else said. I quoted the source. What you posted doesn't even qualify as hearsay.
I don't make a living doing it, but if you are going to put up people and their philosophies as examples, then yes, I have no problem showing your lack of research.
I really do not care what an anonymous poster wrote. This is about Camus and you.
And I quoted from DeSade to show other what other deeply considerate thinkers have to say.
Actually, I was in the 5th grade when I saw how nonsensical Eden, the Ark and God were.
I think Dawkins views go far beyond debunking the Ark.
You say "Of course the story isn't literal history and science." How many Creationists on this forum have you convinced of this?
Here is what you said that prompted my blather comment...
I read it then. I read it again just now. I'll stand by my original assesment but I'll also throw in the word "woo".
Yeah. Some people do that to get out of conversations when they are in over their heads. Do what you gotta do.
ecco
Veteran Member
Dear lord in heaven!
I guess I'll just have to repeat...
You seem to be a fan of Ham. If not, why would you call me out for laughing at him and his Creation Museum?
BTW, did you see my post where palaeontologists were also laughing?
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco said: ↑
What makes you think I was ever a Christian? I never said I was ever a Christian.
Right. I didn't say it, so what made you think I was ever a Christian? Was that just an assumption on your part? Was that because you think that everyone is indoctrinated into the Christian religion from birth?
What makes you think I was ever a Christian? I never said I was ever a Christian.
Right. I didn't say it, so what made you think I was ever a Christian? Was that just an assumption on your part? Was that because you think that everyone is indoctrinated into the Christian religion from birth?
I'm not going to bother composing an intelligent response to the rest of your replies, since it's pointless, like debating with a Creationist.
But this last post I'll make in response to you going forward, is hopefully easier to follow. The comment that I must be a fan of Ken Ham because I think someone who is more ostensibly more knowledgeable and self aware than him mocking and ridiculing him, shows a lack of depth, and truly intelligent thought. Do you laugh at children for being "stupid"? If so, it's not the kid who is stupid, but the so-called adult saying that.
I'm moving on now. You should as well.
One last comment... You have yet to deny it. I "suspect it" strongly at this point, based on a decade of being a moderator at a site for former fundamentalists. While it's relatively easy to change what one believes, changing how they hold those beliefs, the black and white, I'm right and you're wrong thinking, isn't. "if you don't think Ken Ham should be laughed at, then you must be a fan!" Ridiculous.
If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..., but it possibly might be an Ostrich instead. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm leaning towards not being wrong. It doesn't really matter though. It's still neo-atheism, however you ended up adopting it. And that is radically different than old-school atheism, which was thoughtful and thought provoking. "Noah's Ark is stupid", is juvenile by comparison.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
You are wrong!
Being "a moderator at a site for former fundamentalists" apparently did not give you much insight into people.
I've been on this forum for many years. More than once I have posted how I came to be an atheist and what I was before.
What happened to ...
Ok, you're not a duck. You're an ostrich instead.
Ok, I'm really done now... really...
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Could you expand? To me, the two are in direct contradiction. Perhaps you could explain why you see it differently?
usfan
Well-Known Member
Nah.. those are just competing religious beliefs. 'Science!' says no such thing. It can only assemble the facts and evidence, it cannot concoct plausible explanations for the data.
That's for the religious side of the brain..
..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~Albert Einstein
gnostic
The Lost One
Wow. Spoken like one who has never study science.