Forum menu
NOT – to be clear – with a view to ‘converting’ anyone;
just with a view to answering your legitimate questions and criticisms from a more thorough place than an internet forum normally represents.
That has so far borne no fruit, as I have simply had too much on the go.
So, my idea is this:
If I organised an online ‘pub night’ exclusively for members of STW, to which you could bring your questions, challenges, comments, or arguments, and to which I would try to offer a constructive, interesting, affirming, or corrective response, would you be interested?
For me the bold items represent something more concering in the OP's proposal. As if there were anything in faith or christianity that is defendable.
To me it sounds like an opportunity to indoctrinate.
“Studying” theology just lends credence to religion when actually it is a corrisive and repulsive concept.
Surely you could apply that logic to a lot of History subjects. Does learning about WWII in School legitimise wars?
What do you propose instead, we forget it all ever happened?
Surely you could apply that logic to a lot of History subjects. Does learning about WWII in School legitimise wars?
What do you propose instead, we forget it all ever happened?
Not at all, call it Scam and Manipulations Studies and I'd be happy...
Lump it in with ghosts, seances, snake oil, advertising and politicians.
I just feel that calling it the academic study of theology gives credence to religion.
theotherjonv
Full MemberMan created god.
Equally you can say that man created love.
Both would appear to be intrinsic aspects of human nature as a whole, yes.
There will always be a percentage of people who believe they are immune to one or both 🙂
God might be a human construct, but doesn’t mean s/he isn’t real.
God is as 'real' as any other faith based human construct.
There is no evidence for the actual existence of a god or gods, but obviously we know that there appears to be a need for some of us to believe in one.
I just feel that calling it the academic study of theology gives credence to religion.
It rather seems that you want to counter this by hanging a pejorative label on it instead.
Organised religion has done a lot of harm over the years.
Organised religion has done a lot of good over the years.
It's unfair to cherry-pick one over the other depending on whichever suits your narrative. Whilst personally I'm in agreement with most of the anti-religion sentiment expressed here, I'm not sure that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the solution.*
And whilst I'm lobbing metaphors around - play the ball not the man hey? I'm reasonably sure that SR is one of the good guys.
(* - Well, the bathwater is a solution I suppose...)
Cougar
Full Member
“Studying” theology just lends credence to religion when actually it is a corrisive and repulsive concept.Surely you could apply that logic to a lot of History subjects. Does learning about WWII in School legitimise wars?
What do you propose instead, we forget it all ever happened?
You don't have to believe in a supernatural being to be interested in theology.
Arthur Conan Doyle and James Randi both studied spiritualism, but their conclusions could not have been more different.
You don’t have to believe in a supernatural being to be interested in theology.
I agree. However it seems also that you don't have to have an interest in theology to be posting on a thread actively discussing it. 🤷♂️
🙂
It rather seems that you want to counter this by hanging a pejorative label on it instead.
Organised religion has done a lot of harm over the years.
Organised religion has done a lot of good over the years.It’s unfair to cherry-pick one over the other depending on whichever suits your narrative. Whilst personally I’m in agreement with most of the anti-religion sentiment expressed here, I’m not sure that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the solution.*
And whilst I’m lobbing metaphors around – play the ball not the man hey? I’m reasonably sure that SR is one of the good guys.
Science has done an awful lot of harm, are we to abandon it? No because it is about the pursuit of truth and knowledge, and its principles are founded in the truth. the bad it has done can be countered with more science..
Religions foundation is based on a huge untruth and a scam - god is real, faith, absence of evidence. These all provide a toolkit for the scammers. So it has done good? No, people have done good, end of story. Abandon religion and those people will not do good? I don't think so.
Same with SR - he may well be a good guy, I know some flat earthers and brexiteers that are all lovely people. So what, their beliefs are founded on something "bad." I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty. "God" is founded on it.
play the ball not the man - assume this is a response to my objection to SR's offer to counter some objections. It is my assumption that he may will be doing this in good faith (sic) however his own indoctriantion drives this. Despite not wanting to convert people, any believer still wants to present their own religion in a good light. Its just furthering the indoctriantion, deliberate or not. I feel this needs to be pointed out and is not personal.
So it has done good? No, people have done good, end of story. Abandon religion and those people will not do good? I don’t think so.
I was thinking more, as a random example, providing comfort to people who've lost loved ones. I see posts from people all the time, "nana's smiling down on us from heaven" or variations thereof. It's nonsense of course, and sometimes it's saccharin nonsense (the latest term seems to be "passing over the rainbow bridge" whateverTF that means🤢), but if it helps someone come to terms with their grief then does that really matter? Are you going to go up to them going "it's all lies, she's nothing more than organic fertiliser now, deal with it"?
Or another, in some places the church is the local community centre, especially more rural locations. There was a STW member (whose name I can't remember right now, irritatingly) who explained this at some length on a previous thread. Where I live, one of the churches runs a food bank. I grant you that belief in a deity is kinda superfluous at the ground level for all this (and a cynic might argue that it could be a stealth recruitment drive) but if the motivation is that they're doing god's work then is feeding people not a worthy application of that 'faith'?
I dislike organised religion, on several levels. It's born of times where we sought answers to big questions and we had nothing better. Now that we do have something better it boggles my mind that it still persists in any sort of numbers in a civilised society, I don't see it as relevant. But if modern-day Western Christianity is less god-fearing power and control and more "I'm sure it'll all be OK, love" then I think I'm OK with that incarnation of it at least. I know plenty of self-identifying Christians whose idea of practising is to go to Midnight Mass at Christmas. As far as I can tell they light candles and sing dreary songs and it seems to make them happy.
I feel this needs to be pointed out and is not personal.
Are you planning to attend his vPub to find out?
He’s not forcing anyone to join in though. I’m not in the least bit religious but do find the subject fascinating. Can’t imagine that I’m going to be indoctrinated by listening to and conversing with someone who is more knowledgeable in the history of religion than I am.
On a slight tangent I’m pleasantly surprised by this thread as a whole. The majority of participants have been civil.
Are you planning to attend his vPub to find out?
No. I have a good mate who is into crystals and vibrations. Would I go to one of her lectures? No chance. She knows I think its shite, but that does not stop me liking her or being friends with her.
Crystals and vibrations help people in the same way you describe. I don't think they deserve a degree course to study the evolution of crystal and vibration nonsense through the ages as a furtherance of human knowledge, its just a study in chinese whispers, bullshit and petty squabbles - a reasonable metaphor for theology since it began, and a lot like watching Eastenders.
I am happy for people to waste their own time in the study of theology, or crystals and vibrations, but I just don't want that study to falsly assign credence. I think in the case of theology it does, and this should be addressed.
Remember the uproar about the labeling of "supplements". I felt it was fair approach, by all means sell it but any claim of efficacy needs to be made clear. And to me just offering for sale is making a claim, so it needs to be labelled as "not proven" or whatever.
We need the same labelling on religion and crystals. They do it with financial products...
i’m intrigued by, amongst others, citizens of the USA who seem to be, as far as i understand things, very very far from the teachings of christ but seem to think they are christians.
But if modern-day Western Christianity is less god-fearing power and control and more “I’m sure it’ll all be OK, love” then I think I’m OK with that incarnation of it at least. I know plenty of self-identifying Christians whose idea of practising is to go to Midnight Mass at Christmas. As far as I can tell they light candles and sing dreary songs and it seems to make them happy.
Also, I think this is a little underplayed. European christianty may fall in to this but american does not.
I clearly remember my grandparents and aunts and uncles in Ireland being exactly as you describe, but when Billy Graham was due for a visit, they all paid loads to see him and even more for a blessing. Once you fall for "faith" then you fall for it all.
Try and justify tele-evangalism.
EDIT - Cross post with LAT.
How do you know crystals and vibrations are rubbish?
Defects in crystals are being studied by scientists in my group as generators of very interesting quantum phenomena. Not understood yet is not the same as wrong.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.2549
How do you know crystals and vibrations are rubbish?
Defects in crystals are being studied by scientists in my group as generators of very interesting quantum phenomena. Not understood yet is not the same as wrong.
1) huge leap from crystal defects and quantumn phenomena to healing and bodily vinbration and the ability to bring riches on the wearer.
2) Not understood yet - This is exactly the same argument used by alt medicine, homepaths etc. Show me a single study that hints that crystals can heal or bring riches. Anything done scientifically?
Think about telepathy for example. A mobile phone - hell even a tiny chip can send complex signals a loong way. who is to say that the brain cannot do this also?Tthe power and hardware are there. The problem is, lots of people have tried, and nobody has proven it yet. Look at James Randi for this.
quantum entanglement is definitely a thing, we don't have the sophistication to harness it properly yet but could it provide a pathway or explanation to interactions between crystals and healing? It sounds far fetched but 100 years ago the thought of a video call on a handheld device with someone the other side of the world would sound equally far fetched. The pace of progress is astonishing.
lots of people have tried, and nobody has proven it yet.
Key word = yet
your mind is closed based on what we know now, mine's open based on what we have yet to discover
Not at all, call it Scam and Manipulations Studies and I’d be happy…
It isn't that, though.
I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty. “God” is founded on it.
No, you really don't get it. If you spent some time actually talking to a theologian you might appreciate this.
Despite not wanting to convert people, any believer still wants to present their own religion in a good light. Its just furthering the indoctriantion, deliberate or not.
Ok look. I've been on lots of bike rides with the OP and had many philosophical and theological discussions and not once, EVER has he said anything that suggests he even thinks that his world view is any better than mine, never mind actually articulating that thought. And believe me I would have noticed as I am very tetchy about this kind of thing. He has shown nothing other than respect and curiosity about my world view. That's one of the reasons I respect him so much.
I am happy for people to waste their own time in the study of theology, or crystals and vibrations, but I just don’t want that study to falsly assign credence.
But that's not what it's for. It's not justifying it, it's studying it. You cannot counter something unless you know about it. That's why arguments from ignorance are so frustrating.
I think in the case of theology it does, and this should be addressed.
Put your money where your mouth is then.
your mind is closed based on what we know now, mine’s open based on what we have yet to discover
Bollocks is it.
My issue is that if it worked now, we would see some evidence. There is none. What you are proposing however, is that by studying QE we may find a way to harness crystal defects to heal illness or inury, I offer no resistance to that and would happliy see public funds spend studying this. But they defo do not do any healing currently, there is zero evidence.
The analogy you offer
100 years ago the thought of a video call on a handheld device with someone the other side of the world would sound equally far fetched. The pace of progress is astonishing.
is actually crystals doing the magic, silicone chips are made of single crystals. Your video analogy is like saying that lumps of crytal silicon were always sending video pictures, we just coudlnt see it. when in fact we needed to manipulate the silicon in a certain way and engineer it, and pass electricity through it to get it to send/receive video pictures.
So whilst I am open minded that the crystals may be able to heal us, if we manipulate them, but as it is they don't do it spontaneously. Same as silcon crystals don't send video spontaneously.
No. I have a good mate who is into crystals and vibrations. Would I go to one of her lectures? No chance. She knows I think its shite
So why on earth are you posting in here?
If you're standing there with no other intent other than to go "it's all shite!" - which you mostly haven't until now - then well done, you've made your point, there's not much more to add. If not and you're happy to spend hours typing away in the discussion here then what's the difference between that and talking for an hour?
Not understood yet – This is exactly the same argument used by alt medicine, homepaths etc
There is a grand canyon between "how" and "if." As I'm sure you know, really.
If something demonstrably works then we can work on trying to explain it afterwards. We didn't understand how homeopathy worked so we tested it and demonstrated it to have the same efficacy as placebo, so the "how" no longer mattered - it didn't work. What we didn't do is go "well, it can't possibly work because we don't understand how it could."
Healing crystals almost certainly "don't work" either, but tell that to the quartz crystal oscillator in my watch.
molgrips
Full MemberYou cannot counter something unless you know about it. That’s why arguments from ignorance are so frustrating.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere!
My questions for SR revolve around objectivity and faith.
A study of theology tells us much about humanity, faith and belief, but I do not believe it can tell us anything about the existance of a supreme being. An entirely different question.
Your view on arguments from ignorance applies in some cases, but not all.
not necessarily, some crystal defects undergo spontaneous emission, they don't need to be manipulated or stimulated to do this. Maybe they spontaneously emit radiation of a form that is as yet unknown?
Do I believe that crystal healing is a thing? No, I agree with you that thus far any proof is at best sketchy, more accurately it is in the realms of wuwu dust. Does that mean that in a future state of understanding that will still be true, not necessarily.
Good point Cougar.
1) The discussion is here, it represents something I am passionate about, so I am engaging here, why do I need to join a 2nd discussion.
2) It is implied in the Op that he sets the agenda. Down that road manipulaton lies. See James Randi million dollar challenge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge
3) If there is not much more for me to add, why do people keep asking me questions? I am just answering them.
4) I have not been rude or personal, I pointed out my concerns about the language used by the OP, it is the same as language used by all religious types. I don't mean to be rude, insulting or anything.
5) I happen to have a good mate who is also a russian orthodpox academic, quite a famous guy in fact. I've had these exact conversationw with him... IF SR wants to PM me I'll tell you his name and send you a selfie of me and him together, I feel sure SR will know him.
There is a grand canyon between “how” and “if.” As I’m sure you know, really.
If something demonstrably works then we can work on trying to explain it afterwards. We didn’t understand how homeopathy worked so we tested it and demonstrated it to have the same efficacy as placebo, so the “how” no longer mattered – it didn’t work. What we didn’t do is go “well, it can’t possibly work because we don’t understand how it could.”
Healing crystals almost certainly “don’t work” either, but tell that to the quartz crystal oscillator in my watch.
Exactly, agreed. And pretty much what I said, but probably said in a better way.
European christianty may fall in to this but american does not.
...
Try and justify tele-evangalism.
We aren't American.
There will always be extremist minorities. Tele-evangelism does not represent the majority of Christianity any more than ISIS represents Islam, TERFs represent feminism or PETA represents vegans. You can't simply conclude "well without [cause] they wouldn't exist because the fundamental problem with people like these is that they'd then simply latch on to [another cause] instead.
We aren’t American.
There will always be extremist minorities. Tele-evangelism does not represent the majority of Christianity any more than ISIS represents Islam
No but my experience with irish catholic christians was that there were well prepared to behave like the americans when given the chance.
I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty. “God” is founded on it.
No, you really don’t get it. If you spent some time actually talking to a theologian you might appreciate this.
MOlgrips - if you are arguing from false postulates then nothing derived from those false postulates is valid. "god exists" is a false postulate.
You are falsely giving equivalence to both positions " god exists" and "god does not exist" Thus undermining your point and badly missing others pioints
1) The discussion is here, it represents something I am passionate about, so i am negaging here, why do I need to joind a 2nd discussion.
Well, it'd be a lot more efficient.
You're passionate about it, but on only your own terms? I thought you were the open-minded one. 😁
2) It is implied in the Op that he sets the agenda. Down that road manipulaton lies. See James Randi million dollar challenge.
No, you've inferred that. And in fact, you've been told the opposite from several quarters now.
That's the second time you (or someone?) has mentioned Randi. I'm reasonably confident that most contributors here are familiar with his work and the challenge. I certainly am, I've watched loads.
3) If there is not much more for me to add, why do people keep asking me questions? I am jsut answering them.
I said, there's nothing to add if all you want to say is "it's shite."
4) I have not been rude or personal, I pointed out my concerns about the language used by the OP, it is the same as language used by all religious types. I don’t mean to be rude, insulting or anything.
That's not for me to say, I don't think.
5) I happen to have a good mate who is also a russian orthodpox academic, quite a famous guy in fact. I’ve had these exact conversationw with him… IF SR wants to PM me I’ll tell you his name and send you a selfie of me and him together, I feel sure SR will know him.
"I can't be racist, I have a brown friend!" 😁
That's interesting actually. Maybe he'd like to join in with SR's vPub session?
Depends on your definition of 'God'
Is 'Love exists' a false postulate?
Love is a chemical reaction based on evolutionary pressures to stop you killing your children. Oxytocin mainly IIRC
It does not depend on your definition of god - god is not real. Its a construct of medieval and older superstition. No definition of god has any validity
Do I believe that crystal healing is a thing? No, I agree with you that thus far any proof is at best sketchy, more accurately it is in the realms of wuwu dust. Does that mean that in a future state of understanding that will still be true, not necessarily.
This is just restating my response to you calling me closed minded, we agree 100% on crystals.
Therefore recant your claim on my so called closed mind.
Isn't love just the delusion that one person is better for you than eight billion others? (-:
Ooh. Where do we stand on people who say they love Jesus?
Love is a chemical reaction based on ev9oltionarty pressures to stop you killing your children. Oxytocin mainly IIRC
Exactly, therefore does love exist?
The concept is a human interpretation of the emotional reaction to procreate and ensure your progeny survive. I don' think anyone here could define what love is, so arguing if it exists is a waste of time.
“I can’t be racist, I have a brown friend!” 😁
Mate that is lame and you know it, I mentioned it as response to molgrips saying that I should discuss theology with someone who knows it well and implying that I am ignorant of it.
Plus am not saying that I am not "theologian-ist", I think he is full of shit too and I've told him..
I think most of us wouldn't question the existence of love, given that most of us will have experienced it.
However, it would take a scientist to explain the chemistry and biology behind it.
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.
Hence my argument with Molgrips' position on theology.
Mate that is lame and you know it
Of course I do, it was a joke. That's why there was a smiley in the quote you, er, quoted.
This is just restating my response to you calling me closed minded, we agree 100% on crystals.
Therefore recant your claim on my so called closed mind.
You said they were shite, and then said you were open minded that under manipulation they might. Actually they might even without manipulation using mechanisms we don't yet know or understand. I don't need to recant, you already did. But we're now on the head of the same pin, albeit not in 100% agreement.
No definition of god has any validity
God is a human construct, not a physical manifestation. But the effect of that construct is to give some people a sense of belonging, a higher purpose to their lives, and a rationale for things that happen in their lives. It brings them comfort when they need it, and stimulates chemicals in their systems that manifests in real, measurable effects.
Is that not valid as a definition?
God is a human construct, not a physical manifestation. But the effect of that construct is to give some people a sense of belonging, a higher purpose to their lives, and a rationale for things that happen in their lives. It brings them comfort when they need it, and stimulates chemicals in their systems that manifests in real, measurable effects.
Is that not valid as a definition?
The bold highlight is a fancy pseudo academic way of saying that God is is made up.
I think most of us wouldn’t question the existence of love, given that most of us will have experienced it.
However, it would take a scientist to explain the chemistry and biology behind it.
A sociologist, therapist, philosipher or divorce lawyer may be able to discuss the history and affects of love on humanity, but they have no greater claim to explain the physical process behind it than the layman.
Hence my argument with Molgrips’ position on theology.
This is a great analogy.
Don't you find it fascinating that humans seem to need to make up such things?
How does science and rational belief affect our acceptance of this need?
Is 'progression' linear, cyclical or chaotic?
What can history tell us about the nature of faith?
This of course leads to a discussion about views on spirituality, fake news, social media, everything really.
But people living in other societies accept limits on personal freedom and autonomy that we in the West would not. Why is that?
State sovereignty (Western style) is a position of extreme privilege considering indigenous sovereignty still struggles for a definition after contact/colonialism. Of course self-determination and autonomy of indigenous/aboriginal peoples was first taken away/eroded before being in some small parts ‘handed back’ in unrecognisable tatters. It’s a very complex subject. Aboriginal peoples in general had (for instance) far more sex & gender equality before colonialism. Moreso than the European settlers/invaders.
An interesting historical overview here:
American Indian Women
(Illustration: Obleka, an Eskimo woman 1907)
Question: What were women treated like in the tribes of the Indians?
And let’s be honest, when comparing western world views with aboriginal world views how many of us could even list a handful of differences?
Eight differences between Indigenous and western worldviews
Indigenous worldviews (I) vs Western worldviews (W)
1.(I) Spiritually orientated society. System based on belief and spiritual world.
1.(W) Scientific, skeptical. Requiring proof as a basis of belief.
2.(I)There can be many truths; truths are dependent upon individual experiences.
2.(W) There is only one truth, based on science or Western style law.
3.(I) Society operates in a state of relatedness. Everything and everyone is related. There is real belief that people, objects and the environment are all connected. Law, kinship and spirituality reinforce this connectedness. Identity comes from connections.
3.(W)Compartmentalized society, becoming more so.
4.(I) The land is sacred and usually given by a creator or supreme being.
4.(W) The land and its resources should be available for development and extraction for the benefit of humans.
5.(I) Time is non-linear, cyclical in nature. Time is measured in cyclical events. The seasons are central to this cyclical concept.
5.(W) Time is usually linearly structured and future orientated. The framework of months, years, days etc reinforces the linear structure.
6.(I) Feeling comfortable is measured by the quality of your relationships with people.
6.(W) Feeling comfortable is related to how successful you feel you have been in achieving your goals.
7.(I) Human beings are not the most important in the world.
7.(W) Human beings are most important in the world.
8.(I) Amassing wealth is important for the good of the community
8.(W)Amassing wealth is for personal gain
The bold highlight is a fancy pseudo academic way of saying that God is is made up.
Does it negate the rest of his post though?
Spider-Man is a man-made construct. Would you criticise someone for enjoying it?
Spider-Man is a man-made construct. Would you criticise someone for enjoying it?
Of course not, I said earlier I don't object to people doing religion, theology, seances etc. As long as nobody claims its true. You don't see marvel claiming spiderman is real and we should do as he says.
Because people have claimed god is true since whenever, we need to give it a health warning.
On a personal note, I don't go around christian baiting. The OP opened up the discussion. IF someone tells me they are christian etc, I tend to leave well alone. None of my business.
However if I see people using religion to manipulate people then its a different matter...
At least Potter fans know it is imaginary.
I'm not so sure.