Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 41>
Poll Question: What are you?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
26 [30.59%]
13 [15.29%]
46 [54.12%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 17:37
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ so aren't you cherry-picking statements by the church ... only accepting them if they fit your point of view?
 
No, only accepting those proclaimed "Ex Cathedra" as infalluible, as our doctrine says.
 
Quote

"We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he speaks ex cathedra as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium" (Vol. 2, p.392).

 
As an example, if the Pope Ratzinger says Germany is going to win the next World Cup, it's only an opinion and absolutely fallible.
 
In the same way, issues of health as AIDS are not a matter of faith in the excercize of his supreme magisterium, so only opinions.
 
Simple and with no contradictions.
 
Iván
 


Damn straight. If they do he should be defrocked post-haste for providing evidence that a benign God truly doesn't exist.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 20:46
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

It may be that what I call the spiritual need is just a desire for a more palatable existence.
 
But when I come to understand spiritual truths, I get the same sense of Truth I get when I learn scientific ones.
 
Totally subjective.


Can you give examples? (Do you meditate, etc.?)
 
I've avoided this because I'm a dabbler and I dabble in meditation and yoga and chi kung and all that hippy BS.
 
But the phenonemon that is personal has come through both prayer and meditation.
 
And that is in deep reflection, some answers have come that have come no other way. I'll give more details a little later.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 20:50
Only a vengeful God would explain my terrible luck


Time always wins.
Back to Top
AmbianceMan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 22:05
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling
 
I know some have agreed with this, but this may be one of the most incorrect statements thusfar.  I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that says otherwise.  You take the word into third world countries and people FLOCK to it like rabid dogs.  Every culture on every level in every socioeconomic status raises these questions.  The difference with countries like ours is we get to sit around and argue about what "theory" means and ponder existentialism, and clutter up the argument so much that you couldn't cut through it with a gamma knife.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 06 2009 at 22:10

Bought the new Jared Diamond and Stephen Jay Gould's treatise on the separation of science and religion tonight.

When I'm done I'll relate whether they're worth anything IMO.

Mike, you need to at least delve into Gould. He'll still be very comfortable for you, but will expand your knowledge base.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 02:01
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling
 
I know some have agreed with this, but this may be one of the most incorrect statements thusfar.  I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that says otherwise.  You take the word into third world countries and people FLOCK to it like rabid dogs.  Every culture on every level in every socioeconomic status raises these questions.  The difference with countries like ours is we get to sit around and argue about what "theory" means and ponder existentialism, and clutter up the argument so much that you couldn't cut through it with a gamma knife.


You might need more than a gamma knife to cut your way back to the first world through this verbal jungle methinks. My idea of 'consolatary meaning' doesn't quite stretch to a recruitment drive that targets the 'word' at the credulous and vulnerable. I suspect that flock and like rabid dogs are just clumsy phraseology and hope you don't really mean to imply that the spiritually famished are sheep (otherwise we could be forgiven for thinking dogma is derived from rabid dogs ?.)

No, I really don't think all cultures and societies have either the time or inclination to ponder such teleological concerns as outlined in this thread. As I stated, that strikes me as a luxury we in the relatively comfortable 1st world enjoy. I guess that famine, poverty, persecution, disease and surviving past the next bloody coup leave very few windows in your itinerary for introspective ennui.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 02:04
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling
 
I know some have agreed with this, but this may be one of the most incorrect statements thusfar.  I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that says otherwise.  You take the word into third world countries and people FLOCK to it like rabid dogs.  Every culture on every level in every socioeconomic status raises these questions.  The difference with countries like ours is we get to sit around and argue about what "theory" means and ponder existentialism, and clutter up the argument so much that you couldn't cut through it with a gamma knife.


Of course. The lower the education and the greater the feeling of desperation and failure in a population, the easier they can be manipulated.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 02:50
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling
 
I know some have agreed with this, but this may be one of the most incorrect statements thusfar.  I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that says otherwise.  You take the word into third world countries and people FLOCK to it like rabid dogs.  Every culture on every level in every socioeconomic status raises these questions.  The difference with countries like ours is we get to sit around and argue about what "theory" means and ponder existentialism, and clutter up the argument so much that you couldn't cut through it with a gamma knife.
That proved Iain's point rather than your own. But hey-ho.
 
 
btw: little know fact (perhaps) 1st, 2nd & 3rd World was not a socioeconomic demarcation, nor was it related to historical development, industrialisation or age - it was simply which side a country was on during the Cold War (Capitalist, Communist, Unaligned/Neutral).
What?
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 05:35

[/QUOTE]
 

 
btw: little know fact (perhaps) 1st, 2nd & 3rd World was not a socioeconomic demarcation, nor was it related to historical development, industrialisation or age - it was simply which side a country was on during the Cold War (Capitalist, Communist, Unaligned/Neutral).
[/QUOTE]

I had no idea that was the origin. Presumably our spurious use of the terms were accelerated after the cold war ceased ? (Why did you type same in timid gothic midget font size though ? Stern Smile)
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 05:43
^ because it was waaaay off topic Wink
What?
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 05:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

^ because it was waaaay off topic Wink


Point size taken
Back to Top
jampa17 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 09:11
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling
 
I know some have agreed with this, but this may be one of the most incorrect statements thusfar.  I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that says otherwise.  You take the word into third world countries and people FLOCK to it like rabid dogs.  Every culture on every level in every socioeconomic status raises these questions.  The difference with countries like ours is we get to sit around and argue about what "theory" means and ponder existentialism, and clutter up the argument so much that you couldn't cut through it with a gamma knife.


Of course. The lower the education and the greater the feeling of desperation and failure in a population, the easier they can be manipulated.
 
That responds very well how US sends thousand of people to manipulate those here in Latin America. No matter which denomination of evangelistic they are, the important thing is to come to the "low educated" places and try to re-manipulate people... is so evident  to this date... I can assure you that the "manipulate poor people" is the way that in the so called 1st world can be think over religion... but the real thing is that all that encourage to send priests to try to convert people is only a way to try to keep the Catholic church away from power and influence over the people... In the other hand, religion still survive on this countries not because the "low educated people" but because we are not self-satisfied like in the 1st world... we have here more conscience about our reality, not just filling our empty houses with comfortable things to makes life easier...
 
What I have seen, maybe is not a significant point of view but it exists, is that when you are better in every way -money, education, comfort- you forget more about God... the direct relation is show even in the Bible, I know Mike don't want quotes from it... so I just said that ungreatfullness is in our nature... I think this is more accurate than saying that poor people is easier to manipulate... if you don't believe me, well, where is where people makes massive suicides about religion...??? is not in Latin America... but the 1st world US... right...???
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 12:50
^ there are many topics covered in your post, which makes it difficult to post an answer.

On the subject of poverty, religion and terrorism I would really like to refer you to Andy Thomson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpImeYCZKBk

He covers all of that in great detail, and I really think you might find it interesting.
Back to Top
jampa17 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 12:58
^ I will see it... but when I get back home... I cannot see videos here... but surely I would see it... maybe it throws something more to the topic...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Back to Top
AmbianceMan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 13:23
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling
 
I know some have agreed with this, but this may be one of the most incorrect statements thusfar.  I have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE that says otherwise.  You take the word into third world countries and people FLOCK to it like rabid dogs.  Every culture on every level in every socioeconomic status raises these questions.  The difference with countries like ours is we get to sit around and argue about what "theory" means and ponder existentialism, and clutter up the argument so much that you couldn't cut through it with a gamma knife.


You might need more than a gamma knife to cut your way back to the first world through this verbal jungle methinks. My idea of 'consolatary meaning' doesn't quite stretch to a recruitment drive that targets the 'word' at the credulous and vulnerable. I suspect that flock and like rabid dogs are just clumsy phraseology and hope you don't really mean to imply that the spiritually famished are sheep (otherwise we could be forgiven for thinking dogma is derived from rabid dogs ?.)

No, I really don't think all cultures and societies have either the time or inclination to ponder such teleological concerns as outlined in this thread. As I stated, that strikes me as a luxury we in the relatively comfortable 1st world enjoy. I guess that famine, poverty, persecution, disease and surviving past the next bloody coup leave very few windows in your itinerary for introspective ennui.
 
You've heard that "There are no atheists in foxholes" haven't you?  Of course.  It's because it has a lot of truth to it.  I think in many ways your thinking is completely opposite of reality.  Maybe it's that you WANT it to be that way...but that doesn't mean it IS that way. 
 
Well, you understood what I meant when using "flock" and "rabid dogs" didn't you?  ...unless you thought somehow by pointing it out to me it gave creedence to your argument and made me appear less intelligent that you.
 
Semantics aside I would argue that famine, war, poverty, persecution tends to provoke MORE thought on spiritual matters.  Countries such as the U.S. produce more overthinkers and give people time to discuss why they don't believe in God.  Too much time on our hands.


Edited by AmbianceMan - December 07 2009 at 13:28
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 13:32
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

 
You've heard that "There are no atheists in foxholes" haven't you?  Of course.  It's because it has a lot of truth to it.  I think in many ways your thinking is completely opposite of reality.  Maybe it's that you WANT it to be that way...but that doesn't mean it IS that way.
Don't mistake a lot of people saying a given thing for that thing being the truth.  Actually you because it was stupid little cold war ditty when we were fighting those evil commonists.

When it comes to foxholes in battle, there's just a lot of people killing while trying not to be killed.  Square that with 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you'.  Sounds more like 'do unto others before they do you in'.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 07 2009 at 13:35
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32552 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 13:34
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

 
You've heard that "There are no atheists in foxholes" haven't you?  Of course.  It's because it has a lot of truth to it.  I think in many ways your thinking is completely opposite of reality.  Maybe it's that you WANT it to be that way...but that doesn't mean it IS that way.
Don't mistake a lot of people saying a given thing for that thing being the truth.


Oh good.

For a while there I was worried that Porcupine Tree is the greatest progressive rock band ever. 

Whew.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
AmbianceMan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 30 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 113 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 14:01
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

 
You've heard that "There are no atheists in foxholes" haven't you?  Of course.  It's because it has a lot of truth to it.  I think in many ways your thinking is completely opposite of reality.  Maybe it's that you WANT it to be that way...but that doesn't mean it IS that way.
Don't mistake a lot of people saying a given thing for that thing being the truth.


Oh good.

For a while there I was worried that Porcupine Tree is the greatest progressive rock band ever. 

Whew.
 
No doubt. 
 
If I thought things were true just because most people believe it then I would be an evolutionist or an atheist too.


Edited by AmbianceMan - December 07 2009 at 15:49
Back to Top
jampa17 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 07 2009 at 14:37
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

 
You've heard that "There are no atheists in foxholes" haven't you?  Of course.  It's because it has a lot of truth to it.  I think in many ways your thinking is completely opposite of reality.  Maybe it's that you WANT it to be that way...but that doesn't mean it IS that way.
Don't mistake a lot of people saying a given thing for that thing being the truth.


Oh good.

For a while there I was worried that Porcupine Tree is the greatest progressive rock band ever. 

Whew.
 
Crap... I already sell my guitar just to have money to buy all their albums...!!! they are not the best...??? rats..!!
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Back to Top
Silverbeard McStarr View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 05 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 167 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 11:18
Atheist, nontheist, anti-theist and agnostic. Agnostic as it's original meaning.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 41>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.