Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 29, 2024, 4:18 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Collaboration with theists?
#51
RE: Collaboration with theists?
Wow.. a bullfighter would be proud of that dodge SecularOne ...nice job! Smile

Existentialism yes I agree Sae. More circular than a perfect circle Smile

I don't think spirituality is supernatural. It's something tangible yet unprovable. Possibly like thought. As some would define thought as purely natural, then to them spirituality = natural.

SecularOne Wrote:For me, spiritual growth implies my growth as a person in character, integrity, values, relationships, happiness, etc. Essentially everything in my life that has anything to do with who and what I am and how I'm coping with the challenges of life.

I don't yet fully understand this SO. What is the 'spirit' then to you? In christian terms I'm sure you're aware it describes a person's essence perhaps. Their mind. Their persona. What is it to you exactly?
Reply
#52
RE: Collaboration with theists?
fr0d0 Wrote:Existentialism yes I agree Sae. More circular than a perfect circle
How can you get more circular than a perfect circle...? Tongue After all this time... I still don't see what you have against existentialism Tongue

fr0d0 Wrote:It's something tangible yet unprovable. Possibly like thought.
...? Didn't we discuss this already? Thought is 100% physical... but it takes a functioning brain to comprehend. As for proof of thought (and it's being physical)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons Smile
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#53
RE: Collaboration with theists?
We've discussed it very thorougly Sae but never reached any conclusion. Some say one thing, some say another. Neither satisfactorily answers the question equivocally.

We know how thought is originated and processed.. but thought is more than the neurons. Cogitation is of course produced, stored and transferred physically, and death terminates it, along with physical interruption. The great CPU of our brain creates and develops ideas that ride on top of all this physical activity. The two are connected but not the same thing, and no one has produced here any evidence to the contrary, yet. I'm not interested in one side of this discussion, both scenarios are fine by me.
Reply
#54
RE: Collaboration with theists?
(November 6, 2009 at 12:59 pm)Saerules Wrote:
secularone Wrote:And now, for Saerules, who is interested in what Unitarian Universalists mean by "inherent worth." Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake
Hmm... by that do you mean to elaborate on the point that A=A... in that A's attributes define A?

That could be a good way of putting it. I just believe that all people have value, if for no other reason than the fact that they are people.

Quote:I can see that definition of 'spirit'/'spiritual growth' Smile It (Unitarian Universalism) seems a great deal like existentialism to me... would that be a correct observation, Secularone?

Well, since it's my definition, I suppose I can agree with that analysis. But it's important to remember that not all UU's adopt my definition and I don't have a problem with them having their own.

When it comes to collaborating with theists, I am resistant to collaborating with them in any way that would further dumb-down agendas. On the other hand, one could argue correctly that I am collaborating with theists by working with anyone, including theists who share and promote my values.
I don't consider my values to be a religion.

And while there are theists in UU congregations, there are no Fundamentalists. There are representations of many religious backgrounds.
Reply
#55
RE: Collaboration with theists?
(November 3, 2009 at 8:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Of course they are, it's the default position. Most Atheists here assume a hell of a lot of bad things about Christians akin to demonising them.

1. Most people are not atheists.

2.
Quote:Most Atheists here assume a hell of a lot of bad things about Christians akin to demonising them.
Your original claim was that Christians are considered fundamentalist by default. You did not specify us atheists in this forum, and even if that is what you mean... now you are saying 'most' (of 'us')... and if that is the case... please give details (if you can)... what are you referring to?

EvF
Reply
#56
RE: Collaboration with theists?
(November 6, 2009 at 8:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 1. Most people are not atheists.

Of course they are!!! Not in your wildest dreams would that not be true.

(November 6, 2009 at 8:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 2.
Quote:Most Atheists here assume a hell of a lot of bad things about Christians akin to demonising them.
Your original claim was that Christians are considered fundamentalist by default. You did not specify us atheists in this forum, and even if that is what you mean... now you are saying 'most' (of 'us')... and if that is the case... please give details (if you can)... what are you referring to?

Whenever the term 'Christian' is used it's to demonize via some extreme example as if this applies to all Christians by default rather than the extreme and totally non Christian acts always portrayed.
Reply
#57
RE: Collaboration with theists?
(November 6, 2009 at 9:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Of course they are!!! Not in your wildest dreams would that not be true.

All evidence points to the contrary as far as I know...

There are over 1.5 Billion Catholics for instance, as far as I remember...

Christianity is the majority... Islam is 2nd.

Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religi...bution.png


Quote:Whenever the term 'Christian' is used it's to demonize via some extreme example as if this applies to all Christians by default rather than the extreme and totally non Christian acts always portrayed.

Actually as far as I know... it's the opposite.

People will say things like "That's very Christian of you"... and it's apparently an insult to say someone is "Unchristian".... it has negative connotations according to dictionaries and thesauruses if I remember correctly last time I looked it up Tongue

Just as impious has negative connotations. As piety has positive ones... I as an atheist think that is bullshit of course - there's nothing wrong with impiety Wink

And people will say things like "What are you playing such loud music for at this ungodly hour?" ...ungodly is used as a curse word.

Sure, there are many non-religious people who flame religious people...but then there are many who don't. And when there are irreligious flamers of the religious... I doubt they simply refer to them as "Christians".

Christian does not=fundie. I, like many atheists alike I believe, understand that there are fundie Christians...but there are also moderate Christians. And there are all those in-between, etc.

What is your point?

EvF
Reply
#58
RE: Collaboration with theists?
Christian adherants (including non believers) in the world total 2.1billion of a total 6.2billion world population (2002 figures). Add the other religions and you don't reach 50% ...and remember a large proportion don't even believe.


My point is that contrary to what the statement says, Christianity is actually at least as much of a dirty word as Atheism. Those cliche's you speak of are now effectively archaic language. No one would ever say those things indiscriminately in our society.
Reply
#59
RE: Collaboration with theists?

Reply
#60
RE: Collaboration with theists?
(November 6, 2009 at 10:26 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Christian adherants (including non believers) in the world total 2.1billion of a total 6.2billion world population (2002 figures). Add the other religions and you don't reach 50% ...and remember a large proportion don't even believe.

Religion is still vastly in the majority... so for atheism to be in the majority over theism then almost every single religious person would have to not actually believe in God. Is that what you are suggesting? And if so, where's your evidence?

Quote:My point is that contrary to what the statement says, Christianity is actually at least as much of a dirty word as Atheism.
What makes you think that?


Quote: Those cliche's you speak of are now effectively archaic language. No one would ever say those things indiscriminately in our society.

What are you referring to here?
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)