S
Sacredstar
Guest
and what we believe creates our reality
being love
Sacredstar
being love
Sacredstar
Natural Justice: Does it exist?
- Thread starter iBrian
- Start date
Blue
Member
MintF,
You say:
What's the point of morality if they are man-made concepts with no bearing on the natural scheme of things:?
Only you can answer that according to the dictates of your reasoning and rationality. As Einstein said there is a need for a morality and ethical system based in rationality, rather than the religious, and that should extend to our system of education.
=============
Green Lantern,
You say:
"Natural or Divine Justice does exist because I choose to believe. All things will be tried, and judicial decision will be passed in the end...even if it will be in the Celestial Kingdom. My proof is only opinion like others, but I guess we will find out during our transition."
And I am pleased to see you emphasise this is a subjective and personal affective view. That's fine.
You spoil it at the end though, because you make a guess at something as if it is likely to be actually universally true: "I guess we will find out during our transition."
How on earth do you know,my friend, that there is a 'transition'.
Yes... you can guess what you may or may not find out, but what is this 'transition'?
Have you some good, logical and objective evidence for claiming our death is a transition rather than just an end... a cessation? I have never seen or heard of any?
You say:
What's the point of morality if they are man-made concepts with no bearing on the natural scheme of things:?
Only you can answer that according to the dictates of your reasoning and rationality. As Einstein said there is a need for a morality and ethical system based in rationality, rather than the religious, and that should extend to our system of education.
=============
Green Lantern,
You say:
"Natural or Divine Justice does exist because I choose to believe. All things will be tried, and judicial decision will be passed in the end...even if it will be in the Celestial Kingdom. My proof is only opinion like others, but I guess we will find out during our transition."
And I am pleased to see you emphasise this is a subjective and personal affective view. That's fine.
You spoil it at the end though, because you make a guess at something as if it is likely to be actually universally true: "I guess we will find out during our transition."
How on earth do you know,my friend, that there is a 'transition'.
Yes... you can guess what you may or may not find out, but what is this 'transition'?
Have you some good, logical and objective evidence for claiming our death is a transition rather than just an end... a cessation? I have never seen or heard of any?
S
Sacredstar
Guest
Dear Blue
Check out Michael Roll from Bristol, the scientific proof of survival after death. He says 'Here is an extraordinary paradox. Only those who can be relied upon to dismiss findings and conclusions of our pioneers of radio and television are allowed on radio and television. Our scientists who support the British pioneers of radio and television - Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and John Logie Baird - have been blocked from speaking about the scientific proof of survival after death until March 1998. We have had the experimental proof ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - "The Quarterly Journal of Science in 1874. Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as as scientific fact.
Scientific proof as been censored for years. Michael Roll as worked passionately over recent years for to get this rectified.
When Stephen Hawkings had an audience with the Pope, the Pope told him that he did not mind what he discovered, but he must stay away from Life After Death for that is his domain.
Onwards and upwards
Sacredstar
Check out Michael Roll from Bristol, the scientific proof of survival after death. He says 'Here is an extraordinary paradox. Only those who can be relied upon to dismiss findings and conclusions of our pioneers of radio and television are allowed on radio and television. Our scientists who support the British pioneers of radio and television - Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and John Logie Baird - have been blocked from speaking about the scientific proof of survival after death until March 1998. We have had the experimental proof ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day - "The Quarterly Journal of Science in 1874. Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments "There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as as scientific fact.
Scientific proof as been censored for years. Michael Roll as worked passionately over recent years for to get this rectified.
When Stephen Hawkings had an audience with the Pope, the Pope told him that he did not mind what he discovered, but he must stay away from Life After Death for that is his domain.
Onwards and upwards
Sacredstar
S
Sacredstar
Guest
Here are some links for michael role and his campaign for philosophical freedom.
www.cfpf.org.uk
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
Christian era. Michael Roll. Related material on this site: The Suppression
of Knowledge - A pamphlet by Michael Roll. "There is ...
www.cfpf.org.uk
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
In this 30 minute video Michael Roll presents what the people are not allowed access to in the Theocracy of Great Britain - a country where the Church and the ... www.cfpf.org.uk/recommended/video/secularcase.html
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
"A History of Christianity" - A Page-by-Page Criticism of Paul Johnson's Horror Story. by Michael Roll (1982, 50 pages). Paul Johnson's ...
www.cfpf.org.uk
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
The Scientific Proof of Survival After Death Belongs to Every Person on Earth
www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists.html - 14k - 21 Dec 2004
being love
Sacredstar
www.cfpf.org.uk
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
Christian era. Michael Roll. Related material on this site: The Suppression
of Knowledge - A pamphlet by Michael Roll. "There is ...
www.cfpf.org.uk
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
In this 30 minute video Michael Roll presents what the people are not allowed access to in the Theocracy of Great Britain - a country where the Church and the ... www.cfpf.org.uk/recommended/video/secularcase.html
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
"A History of Christianity" - A Page-by-Page Criticism of Paul Johnson's Horror Story. by Michael Roll (1982, 50 pages). Paul Johnson's ...
www.cfpf.org.uk
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
The Scientific Proof of Survival After Death Belongs to Every Person on Earth
www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists.html - 14k - 21 Dec 2004
being love
Sacredstar
Blue
Member
Hi SacredStar,
I am familiar with the nonsense perpetrated by Michael Roll.
So are the many people he approaches with his irrationalism.
There just isn't any evidence so far.
Is that so hard to accept by the 'Michael Rolls' of this world?
Every approach to set up test situations has been not only refused but ridiculed by Michael Roll.
Is that the action of a reasonable and rational man?
When presented with evidence contrary to his views... all he has ever given is 'assertion' and personal 'affirmation'.
If he has real and repeatable scientific and objective evidence, let him present it. That's all his critics ask for. He has singularly failed to do this to date.
Beyond all that, I have no comment... though I have to admit to not having watched the video. What's in it?
I am familiar with the nonsense perpetrated by Michael Roll.
So are the many people he approaches with his irrationalism.
There just isn't any evidence so far.
Is that so hard to accept by the 'Michael Rolls' of this world?
Every approach to set up test situations has been not only refused but ridiculed by Michael Roll.
Is that the action of a reasonable and rational man?
When presented with evidence contrary to his views... all he has ever given is 'assertion' and personal 'affirmation'.
If he has real and repeatable scientific and objective evidence, let him present it. That's all his critics ask for. He has singularly failed to do this to date.
Beyond all that, I have no comment... though I have to admit to not having watched the video. What's in it?
Vajradhara
One of Many
and Dr. Hawking comments, in the same lecture, that it was because the Pope was unaware of what the content of the lecture was. the Pope, whist a good theologian, is no cosmologistSacredstar said:
if he really understood what the No Boundary Proposal implied, there is no way he would have let Dr. Hawking deliver that lecture.
S
Sacredstar
Guest
Dear Vajradhara
I was told this was said in a private audience with the Pope?
being love
Sacredstar
I was told this was said in a private audience with the Pope?
being love
Sacredstar
mirrorinthefog
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Dear Blue,Blue said:
My question is, why is there a need for a morality and ethical system in the first place? Why bother with ethics at all? Shouldn't we just leave things to their "natural" order?
Vajradhara
One of Many
it was... Dr. Hawking mentions this exchange in one of his lectures on the No Boundary Proposal coupled with the Anthropic Principle.Sacredstar said:
if you are interested in that sort of thing, you can visit Dr. Hawkings' site here:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
Blue
Member
"Shouldn't we just leave things to their "natural" order?"
Good question, MirrorintheFog.
My reply is to ask you to explain what you mean by 'natural order'?
Many of us feel, and claim evidence, that there is no 'natural order', but rather 'Chaos', not just on mathematical grounds either.
I wonder what you mean by it?
Would you claim it is 'natural' for a woman to display 'mother-love' towards her children.
The facts of the matter are that throughout history, exceptions to this supposedly natural order/behaviour can be cited. Which reaction is the most natural? Could it be that a mother dissatisfied with her birthed off-spring can indeed reject the child in reason rather than some hormonal/biochemical response? This happens. Mothers have been known to smother their newborn for 'reasons' that do bear examination.
Is it natural order to live in a nuclear family?
Is it part of natural order to never kill?
I am suspicious of any notions that cite 'natural order' as some kind of evidence.
Good question, MirrorintheFog.
My reply is to ask you to explain what you mean by 'natural order'?
Many of us feel, and claim evidence, that there is no 'natural order', but rather 'Chaos', not just on mathematical grounds either.
I wonder what you mean by it?
Would you claim it is 'natural' for a woman to display 'mother-love' towards her children.
The facts of the matter are that throughout history, exceptions to this supposedly natural order/behaviour can be cited. Which reaction is the most natural? Could it be that a mother dissatisfied with her birthed off-spring can indeed reject the child in reason rather than some hormonal/biochemical response? This happens. Mothers have been known to smother their newborn for 'reasons' that do bear examination.
Is it natural order to live in a nuclear family?
Is it part of natural order to never kill?
I am suspicious of any notions that cite 'natural order' as some kind of evidence.
mirrorinthefog
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Blue,
Well, going by the logic you've presented, "natural" would be whatever is most practically and logically suitable for the environment we live in. If "natural order" is as you claim in fact only Chaos, then why not let it prevail? Wouldn't that be more reasonable then trying to establish artificial laws and order that are only destined to fall into chaos? Why do we bother with anything but instinct, where the strong would survive and the weak would be left to themselves?
As I said before, I'm keeping my personal views to myself in this. I'm trying to understand how one would reconcile having morals when there is no evidence to support its validity.
Well, going by the logic you've presented, "natural" would be whatever is most practically and logically suitable for the environment we live in. If "natural order" is as you claim in fact only Chaos, then why not let it prevail? Wouldn't that be more reasonable then trying to establish artificial laws and order that are only destined to fall into chaos? Why do we bother with anything but instinct, where the strong would survive and the weak would be left to themselves?
As I said before, I'm keeping my personal views to myself in this. I'm trying to understand how one would reconcile having morals when there is no evidence to support its validity.
Blue
Member
MitF,
You will note that I neither said there WAS 'chaos' or that I agree there is 'natural order'.
I was asking, very simply, for you to explain what you mean by 'natural order'?
If you are saying a certain genetic combination can produce under certain conditions, a clone of another living creature, no one is claiming the clone will also have the same personality. Personality is dependent so very much upon the affective nature and nurture of the clone, and its native ability to understand and learn.. intelligence, just like any other human being...
This is indicative of 'order', natural or otherwise. If there was no order in the DNA... a clone of a living creature would be an impossibility.
With due respect, you appear to have misunderstood what I actually wrote about 'chaos'.
I do not know... I have said this before. I was asking questions.
======
Re: morality:
Again , you seem ti imply somehow, that there is a 'moral' base outside of reason and rationality.
Surely any ethical base could be based in any 'given set' of dogmas, themselves based in some cultural or social or religious context?
All I am saying is that one developed and based in Reason and rationality, with logically defined statements as guides to moral behaviours is infinitely preferable to arbitrary ones developed as a result of some irrational beliefs?
What people like Einstein have said, and others today say, should happen is that human behaviours be understood, psychologically, anthropologically, biologically, rationally and logically reasoned through...
Socio-ethical, Religious-ethical and cultural-ethical principles must be constantly reassessed... there are no 'ultimate' sets of ethics upon which to base a 'morality'.
Human beings are essentially selfish, which is why we have words like altruism to indicate the basis for behaviours that are other than selfish.
Not only are our genes 'selfish', the evidence for human selfishness is all around you... is it likely we will ever be able to develop a reasoned and rational base for a morality and a devleoped ethical base from that? NO. Irrationalist personal/religious views do NOT produce 'ultimate' moralities or ethics derived from them. The obnly logical approach is through rationality and logic.
Einstein said that was the way, and I agree it is a possibility we have to work with and towards, as all other moralities and their ethical systems, certainly from the time of the ancient Greeks, through masses of corrupt monotheism, to the present day, singularly have failed.
Loving one another as ourselves is sometimes claimed as a religious view/moral view/and a base for a derived ethic, but no one seems to ever explain WHY that should be so. No one seems to examine it rationally to see if it works ethically..in a pragmatic way!
Let me ask you..."Do you think it works?"
I am not asking if it is a 'nice' affective concept or not!
There is no morality in 'natural order'... unless you begin with basic human selfishness, greed, power-seeking and the 'easy' way.
Morality can only, it seems to me, be based in human rationality, reason and logic... a humanistic based set of concepts that need careful definition, which will never represent other than a methodology to control human behaviours contrary to human nature as it really is. The only way out of the impasse is 'Intelligence and Rationality. There is no way out through bases built upon the irrationality of personal affective concepts, religious or vague metaphilosophical stances. They are always superceded anyway by the 'ruling groups' with power over the lives of others, who will use the irrational dogmas, statements about 'ultimate' truths from suspect doctrinal bases in order to commit further indoctrination of the populations they endeavour to control.
Considering how I have revealed here a set of reasonable explanations for my stance, I would ask you to answer some of these points, and the points-questions- in my previous post, to make your stand on all this clearer. I do seem to be speaking to a set of statements that do not show anything to really discuss.
If you wish to discus, MitF, a particular moral and ethical problem, to higlight our views, let's begin with the moralities and ethics of today and throughout history, concerning killing another human being... or lots of other human beings. After all this latter type of behaviour is being conducted/authorised by Christians and Islamic people today... using ethics grounded in their religious and cultural natures.
There are no moralities concerning this problem that can have a convincing base from an irrational religious or personal affective standpoint.
Each case can only be viewed on its own, with reason, rationality and logic... in my opinion, as someone who has killed during his life so far.
King Solomon had great wisdom... and reading of some of his purported judgements do show a leaning, shall we say, towards rationality and logic, do they not?
This is not something new we are discussing.
You will note that I neither said there WAS 'chaos' or that I agree there is 'natural order'.
I was asking, very simply, for you to explain what you mean by 'natural order'?
If you are saying a certain genetic combination can produce under certain conditions, a clone of another living creature, no one is claiming the clone will also have the same personality. Personality is dependent so very much upon the affective nature and nurture of the clone, and its native ability to understand and learn.. intelligence, just like any other human being...
This is indicative of 'order', natural or otherwise. If there was no order in the DNA... a clone of a living creature would be an impossibility.
With due respect, you appear to have misunderstood what I actually wrote about 'chaos'.
I do not know... I have said this before. I was asking questions.
======
Re: morality:
Again , you seem ti imply somehow, that there is a 'moral' base outside of reason and rationality.
Surely any ethical base could be based in any 'given set' of dogmas, themselves based in some cultural or social or religious context?
All I am saying is that one developed and based in Reason and rationality, with logically defined statements as guides to moral behaviours is infinitely preferable to arbitrary ones developed as a result of some irrational beliefs?
What people like Einstein have said, and others today say, should happen is that human behaviours be understood, psychologically, anthropologically, biologically, rationally and logically reasoned through...
Socio-ethical, Religious-ethical and cultural-ethical principles must be constantly reassessed... there are no 'ultimate' sets of ethics upon which to base a 'morality'.
Human beings are essentially selfish, which is why we have words like altruism to indicate the basis for behaviours that are other than selfish.
Not only are our genes 'selfish', the evidence for human selfishness is all around you... is it likely we will ever be able to develop a reasoned and rational base for a morality and a devleoped ethical base from that? NO. Irrationalist personal/religious views do NOT produce 'ultimate' moralities or ethics derived from them. The obnly logical approach is through rationality and logic.
Einstein said that was the way, and I agree it is a possibility we have to work with and towards, as all other moralities and their ethical systems, certainly from the time of the ancient Greeks, through masses of corrupt monotheism, to the present day, singularly have failed.
Loving one another as ourselves is sometimes claimed as a religious view/moral view/and a base for a derived ethic, but no one seems to ever explain WHY that should be so. No one seems to examine it rationally to see if it works ethically..in a pragmatic way!
Let me ask you..."Do you think it works?"
I am not asking if it is a 'nice' affective concept or not!
There is no morality in 'natural order'... unless you begin with basic human selfishness, greed, power-seeking and the 'easy' way.
Morality can only, it seems to me, be based in human rationality, reason and logic... a humanistic based set of concepts that need careful definition, which will never represent other than a methodology to control human behaviours contrary to human nature as it really is. The only way out of the impasse is 'Intelligence and Rationality. There is no way out through bases built upon the irrationality of personal affective concepts, religious or vague metaphilosophical stances. They are always superceded anyway by the 'ruling groups' with power over the lives of others, who will use the irrational dogmas, statements about 'ultimate' truths from suspect doctrinal bases in order to commit further indoctrination of the populations they endeavour to control.
Considering how I have revealed here a set of reasonable explanations for my stance, I would ask you to answer some of these points, and the points-questions- in my previous post, to make your stand on all this clearer. I do seem to be speaking to a set of statements that do not show anything to really discuss.
If you wish to discus, MitF, a particular moral and ethical problem, to higlight our views, let's begin with the moralities and ethics of today and throughout history, concerning killing another human being... or lots of other human beings. After all this latter type of behaviour is being conducted/authorised by Christians and Islamic people today... using ethics grounded in their religious and cultural natures.
There are no moralities concerning this problem that can have a convincing base from an irrational religious or personal affective standpoint.
Each case can only be viewed on its own, with reason, rationality and logic... in my opinion, as someone who has killed during his life so far.
King Solomon had great wisdom... and reading of some of his purported judgements do show a leaning, shall we say, towards rationality and logic, do they not?
This is not something new we are discussing.
mirrorinthefog
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I obviously didn't make myself clear enough.
What I personally believe is not the issue here, I've already said what I had to say in that respect. I am trying to understand your viewpoint, independant of my own.
What I asked you was how you reconciled morality with a purely logical system, and what the role of morality, if any at all would be in that system. It didn't seem reasonable to me that in strictly rational terms there could be any value in ethics at all, not in the terms that we define them now, because the strong would inevitably prevail over the disadvantaged if left to themselves. If your model of ethics is something that differs from what we accept today as universal virtues, so to speak (such as not deliberately harming another human being, killing etc.) then the matter is settled. I'm trying to clarify what you're proposing as an alternative.
You're asking me to define "natural law", as if my views oppose yours, or I'm going to start preaching about revalations to you, then proceed to try to argue your case as if you were in a courtroom and had to win a case for a client. I'm not opposing your views, nor am I supporting them. I'm trying to decipher them. Please don't use this as a platform for your personal distaste for religion.
You've set down an alternative, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. But I strongly resent being attacked for trying to understand the ideas you're presenting, simply because you believe, for whatever reasons good, bad or ugly, that the supernatural cannot be proven and therefore isn't reliable as a source of behavior. Your ferver reminds me too much of people shoving pamphlets through my locks every sunday morning and damning me to Hell for not going to their church.
By all means, think as you wish, but don't put others who are simply curious down for not being as highly and mightily logical as a digital calculator and not sharing your mode of thought.
What I personally believe is not the issue here, I've already said what I had to say in that respect. I am trying to understand your viewpoint, independant of my own.
What I asked you was how you reconciled morality with a purely logical system, and what the role of morality, if any at all would be in that system. It didn't seem reasonable to me that in strictly rational terms there could be any value in ethics at all, not in the terms that we define them now, because the strong would inevitably prevail over the disadvantaged if left to themselves. If your model of ethics is something that differs from what we accept today as universal virtues, so to speak (such as not deliberately harming another human being, killing etc.) then the matter is settled. I'm trying to clarify what you're proposing as an alternative.
You're asking me to define "natural law", as if my views oppose yours, or I'm going to start preaching about revalations to you, then proceed to try to argue your case as if you were in a courtroom and had to win a case for a client. I'm not opposing your views, nor am I supporting them. I'm trying to decipher them. Please don't use this as a platform for your personal distaste for religion.
You've set down an alternative, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. But I strongly resent being attacked for trying to understand the ideas you're presenting, simply because you believe, for whatever reasons good, bad or ugly, that the supernatural cannot be proven and therefore isn't reliable as a source of behavior. Your ferver reminds me too much of people shoving pamphlets through my locks every sunday morning and damning me to Hell for not going to their church.
By all means, think as you wish, but don't put others who are simply curious down for not being as highly and mightily logical as a digital calculator and not sharing your mode of thought.
Blue
Member
MirrorIn The Fog,
I do take some exception to your last post.
Yet again, you demonstrate that you have misuderstood, I think.
This is not a discussion and debate in personal terms...
It is about the central thesis that rationality should prevail over irrationalism through reason.
I AM not and never have been 'anti-religion', not do I deny the 'spiritual' in response terms.
I think I am singularly failing to make clear my stance.
As a Theist, I have no right to criticise anyone's religiosity or personal spiritual responses - AND haven't so far as I am aware!
I believe Debate and Discussion should be lively and committed. I thought that was what I was enjoying.
I repeat for the benefit of others caring to read this Thread, Religions are fundamentally irrational, (AND this is not a statement of belief or faith... it is fact), because they have only personal opinions and subjectivities at their heart.
As a theist, my own theism is irrational.
The problem is that others seem to think they can legitimately externalise their Faith as a reality beyond themselves. They fail to realise its fundamental irrationality. I don't... I know I am being irrational when I expound and describe my spiritual beliefs. (Which you will note I never do.)
As I understand some of your comments, you agree with me.
If I use the personal pronoun 'you', I am not criticising 'you' as a person. I only criticise what people say if they externalise Faith beyond the place... the only place it can acquire validation... that individual's heart and soul. This also applies to any proveably irrational comments without evidence.
I would never criticise their right to their opinions, no more than I would expect other sto criticisemy pesonal irrationalism in my theism.
I apologise profusely if you really think my posts exhibit that personal quality. I have endeavoured to criticise the statements you make regarding their content, their rationality... and logic. That is NOT opinion.The criticisms of some of the content of what you say are made in reason and logic... they refer to psychological knowledge, anthropological knowledge, historical and literary knowledge, and a lifetime of studying religions of the world and philosophy.
I make no statements lightly, without making clear their bases and never criticise people... if I have please cite the evidence. When I give an opinion, I try to make it clear it is only personal, with phrases like 'imho' or 'personally I believe...',etc.
Stating that religious and spiritual responses are personally validated and have no 'rationality' when extended into the material world is fact, not opinion, and the reason why better people than myself have throughout history maintained that questions of spirit and religion are fundamentally irrational when extended into the Cognitive, Material and Objective Domain. These are views based in reason and logic and material research...not self-validated value judgements and opinions.
There simply is no known evidence for the religious domain when it is said to affect the material domain.
Because I have spiritual and faith beliefs, I repeat, that I am as irrational as any one else with a faith based set of spiritual beliefs.
Please do not take that as personal criticism.
If you say "...there is a God" - and stop at that point, or cite textual evidence or doctrines or dogmas, you are being false.. in reason. You have to say "It is my personally validated belief that there is a God, in my heart and soul- and there IS no evidence beyond my personal validations.
I look at the world and see God in everything, perhaps, is what you would maintain, but that is just you and your personal affective nature and nurture.
This thread was about 'Natural Justice'. That remains. If you say there is, you have to demonstrate it beyond personal opinion, proven facts that illustrate it.... as - in fact - I did with 'genetics' and clones.
If anyone maintains there is a 'God' creating a material natural order or natural Justice...they have to produce evidence in the material domain....and no one has --- to my knowledge.
We can all have as many various opinions as we will.
I do take some exception to your last post.
Yet again, you demonstrate that you have misuderstood, I think.
This is not a discussion and debate in personal terms...
It is about the central thesis that rationality should prevail over irrationalism through reason.
I AM not and never have been 'anti-religion', not do I deny the 'spiritual' in response terms.
I think I am singularly failing to make clear my stance.
As a Theist, I have no right to criticise anyone's religiosity or personal spiritual responses - AND haven't so far as I am aware!
I believe Debate and Discussion should be lively and committed. I thought that was what I was enjoying.
I repeat for the benefit of others caring to read this Thread, Religions are fundamentally irrational, (AND this is not a statement of belief or faith... it is fact), because they have only personal opinions and subjectivities at their heart.
As a theist, my own theism is irrational.
The problem is that others seem to think they can legitimately externalise their Faith as a reality beyond themselves. They fail to realise its fundamental irrationality. I don't... I know I am being irrational when I expound and describe my spiritual beliefs. (Which you will note I never do.)
As I understand some of your comments, you agree with me.
If I use the personal pronoun 'you', I am not criticising 'you' as a person. I only criticise what people say if they externalise Faith beyond the place... the only place it can acquire validation... that individual's heart and soul. This also applies to any proveably irrational comments without evidence.
I would never criticise their right to their opinions, no more than I would expect other sto criticisemy pesonal irrationalism in my theism.
I apologise profusely if you really think my posts exhibit that personal quality. I have endeavoured to criticise the statements you make regarding their content, their rationality... and logic. That is NOT opinion.The criticisms of some of the content of what you say are made in reason and logic... they refer to psychological knowledge, anthropological knowledge, historical and literary knowledge, and a lifetime of studying religions of the world and philosophy.
I make no statements lightly, without making clear their bases and never criticise people... if I have please cite the evidence. When I give an opinion, I try to make it clear it is only personal, with phrases like 'imho' or 'personally I believe...',etc.
Stating that religious and spiritual responses are personally validated and have no 'rationality' when extended into the material world is fact, not opinion, and the reason why better people than myself have throughout history maintained that questions of spirit and religion are fundamentally irrational when extended into the Cognitive, Material and Objective Domain. These are views based in reason and logic and material research...not self-validated value judgements and opinions.
There simply is no known evidence for the religious domain when it is said to affect the material domain.
Because I have spiritual and faith beliefs, I repeat, that I am as irrational as any one else with a faith based set of spiritual beliefs.
Please do not take that as personal criticism.
If you say "...there is a God" - and stop at that point, or cite textual evidence or doctrines or dogmas, you are being false.. in reason. You have to say "It is my personally validated belief that there is a God, in my heart and soul- and there IS no evidence beyond my personal validations.
I look at the world and see God in everything, perhaps, is what you would maintain, but that is just you and your personal affective nature and nurture.
This thread was about 'Natural Justice'. That remains. If you say there is, you have to demonstrate it beyond personal opinion, proven facts that illustrate it.... as - in fact - I did with 'genetics' and clones.
If anyone maintains there is a 'God' creating a material natural order or natural Justice...they have to produce evidence in the material domain....and no one has --- to my knowledge.
We can all have as many various opinions as we will.
mirrorinthefog
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
It's not my place to list all the posts that cite offense. I've said what I wished to say on the matter, as I've said before, I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint. I'll leave it up to others to justify what they think they need to justify to you.
Well said.
Blue said:
Well said.
Indeed, I think something of the arguments within this thread has been misconstrued here - please let us not see general points for discussion as personal criticisms, where they are not intended to be read as so.
Merry Boxing Day.
S
Sacredstar
Guest
Do subtle energies exist ?
Yes
Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine Journal (ISSN 1099-6591and ISSN 1084-2209) is a peer-reviewed journal designed to provide guidelines, scientific background, and scientific credibility for subtle-energies applications and to support increased dialogue among clinicians, healers, and the scientific and medical communities. In addition to technical papers, the Journal includes theoretical papers, reports, perspectives, and articles of general interest to clinicians, healers, and involved laypersons.
http://www.issseem.org/journal.html#latestissue
If we accept subtle energies are part of universal energies then it is a natural conclusion that these energies have a natural order IMV.
It is what we do with our energy that counts.....
being love
Sacredstar
Yes
Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine Journal (ISSN 1099-6591and ISSN 1084-2209) is a peer-reviewed journal designed to provide guidelines, scientific background, and scientific credibility for subtle-energies applications and to support increased dialogue among clinicians, healers, and the scientific and medical communities. In addition to technical papers, the Journal includes theoretical papers, reports, perspectives, and articles of general interest to clinicians, healers, and involved laypersons.
http://www.issseem.org/journal.html#latestissue
If we accept subtle energies are part of universal energies then it is a natural conclusion that these energies have a natural order IMV.
It is what we do with our energy that counts.....
being love
Sacredstar
Blue
Member
Hi SacredStar,
What are we to understand by 'subtle energies'?
And why should they have or have not a 'natural order'?
Are you referring to anti-matter? Are you referring to Pulman's 'Dark Materials' in his trilogy? Are you referring to string theory? Or is it a metaphysical concept?
Happy Boxing Day!
What are we to understand by 'subtle energies'?
And why should they have or have not a 'natural order'?
Are you referring to anti-matter? Are you referring to Pulman's 'Dark Materials' in his trilogy? Are you referring to string theory? Or is it a metaphysical concept?
Happy Boxing Day!
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Blue said:
I don't know and are you sure?
There is no objective evidence, although there is testimony. And of course faith, which I agree is personal and not rational.
4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)
The only rational position is agnosticism. But is it the best?
Poetry is a most appropriate way to express this, I think.
To my way of thinking, once the rational and spiritual worlds merge, and there is no choice but to recognize God, we will no longer have free will and this is a state beyond my imagination.
I've been thinking about one of our other conversations. It is true that our faith is not objective and can't be proven to anyone outside ourselves. It is also true that the world beyond our consciousness can't be proven beyond doubt to ourselves. Isn't that how Descartes (oooh, I'm not sure I have the right philosopher here) ended up at the assumption, 'I think therefore I am?' What I wonder is whether this dualism is real. Perhaps it's more like two points on two lines emerging from a single focal point. When you get to the source they become one.
piling it higher and deeper
S
Sacredstar
Guest
Dear Blue
I have provided you with the links to a scientific journal with papers written by scientists on subtle energies. Please take a look then you will understand.
Dear Lunamoth
Two become one just Jesus explains in the Gospel of Thomas.
being love
Sacredstar
I have provided you with the links to a scientific journal with papers written by scientists on subtle energies. Please take a look then you will understand.
Dear Lunamoth
Two become one just Jesus explains in the Gospel of Thomas.
being love
Sacredstar