Thread for Shadow about a higher power

[SubaSteevo]

Originally posted by Shadow248
So since your religion includes NO symbols, then that means the absence of symbols is catering to YOUR religion only.

1. Boondock never said he was an atheist, actually he admits to being religious.
2. An absence of something does not mean you are supporting it. I don't smoke pot, but does that mean I support it being illegal? I'm not wearing any red clothes right now, does that mean I have something against the color red? I don't have any black friends, does that make me racist?

[NapaBavarian]

Originally posted by mohrds


I got sick of reading it in two places.

Doug

I just scan it, I dont read any of the words, and wonder why it is so important to argue over something no one can prove one way or the other...

[NapaBavarian]

Originally posted by BurgundyBeast
I don't have any black friends, does that make me racist?

Do you wear a little white hat?

[Landshark]

Originally posted by BurgundyBeast


1. Boondock never said he was an atheist, actually he admits to being religious.
2. An absence of something does not mean you are supporting it. I don't smoke pot, but does that mean I support it being illegal? I'm not wearing any red clothes right now, does that mean I have something against the color red? I don't have any black friends, does that make me racist?

i don't have hooked-up scoops.......does that mean i'm anti-raw furry dawg?

[Matthewmongan]

i doubt any of you will take the time to read this,
but im wippin out the descartes meditations on the first philosophy:

Renè Descartes postulates many good arguments on the existence of mind body and soul. He explores the existence of god by diving into his own mind and cutting off his senses. This technique is called wall meditation and has been used by the Shaolin Temple for the same purpose. Descartes raises several interesting points; however, when the laws of modern science are applied his points become less viable. In no way do I doubt the existence of a higher power or the existence of a soul. Merely, I am illuminating the incompatibilities of Descartes’ theories with modern ideas of science.

Descartes explores the idea of his existence. He comes to the conclusion that the only part of him that he is sure of existing is the part that is a “thinking thing”(49). He continues to ponder weather or not he brought himself into existence, self-substantiation if you will, and if it is him that continues his own existence, self-preservation. He says, “If such a power were in me, then I would certainly be aware of it. But I observe that there is no power.”(49-50). He attributes his existence to God and as proof he offers his innate idea of God. He cant be produced or preserved by his parents because “I am a thinking thing and have within me a certain idea of God… what caused be is also a thinking thing and too has an idea … of God”(49-50). He explores the origin of god. He concludes, he “did not draw it from the senses” and that “it never came to (him) unexpectedly”(50-51). Thus the idea must come from what he refers to as the “light of nature”(52).


The first theory that I will explore is Descartes’ idea that he is a “thinking thing”(49). This is accurate as the only thing a person can truly be sure of is it’s self. The external world is full of illusions witch can make it difficult to see the truth of reality. It is better to think of the human mind as a computer. All the computer knows is input data and the input data makes up the entirety of the computers existence. Thus for a machine what we call virtual reality is the same as reality. This concept conveys to the human mind, as we are build out of external senses. Ergo the only thing we are sure of existing is our mind.

Descartes doubts the ability of self-substantiation on the grounds that he cannot observe this ability within himself. If this idea was true and only the abilities we observe exists then we wouldn’t exists. We cannot directly observe cell division in our self but it certainly happens. Nor do we full comprehend the function of the endocrine system but all doctors would agree that with out it life is impossible. This is similar to cancer in the terms that we do not know what causes us to exist/continue to exist but we observe the result that we do. Similarly we do not fully know why cancer cells form but we can observe that the do. This is not to be confused with habits that cause cancer such as smoking or sunbathing. We know that smoking causes cancer but we don’t know why. Eliminating that he doesn’t continue his existence Descartes explores other possibilities.




Descartes goes on to discredit his parents’ part in his existence as a “thinking thing”. Descartes states “nor is it they who in any way brought me into being, insofar as I am a thinking thing”(50-51). Human reproduction aside, it is know that the relationship a baby/child has with its primary caregiver, in this case his parents, plays a direct baring on the child’s mental development. For example, when I was a child, to young to remember, my parents had a sailboat. I was in fact conceived on this boat and learned to walk on the same boat. Now without any memory of these events I find myself drawn to the same model boat (Catalina 450) and the ocean in general. If my mother hadn’t recently educated me on my history of sailing I would have never know why I love sailing so much. Another example is my innate ability in martial arts. As a child I would watch a tv program every Saturday at noon called ‘Black Belt Theater’ where they would show both Bruce Lee and Brandon Lee movies. When I aged and I began to study martial arts I found myself drawn to Wang Chun, the same style that father and son displayed on their movies. When I first started to study under Sifu Brian Edwards he was very confused, as I would display forms of the style witch he hadn’t taught me yet during our daily sparing. He inquired my parents if either of them or an older sibling studied before. The only explanation was that I picked it up from the movies I would watch religiously every Saturday. Thus it is possible that the experiences that Descartes received from his parents resulted in him becoming a “thinking thing”. Descartes, however, attributes this to God.



There are two explanations I give for Descartes innate idea of god. One, he absorbed it through his surroundings at an early age, much like I did with Kung Fu and sailing; two, that it is human nature to envision a perfect being. Humans are with limitations the most apparent being physical. We can only run so fast, jump so high, and lift so much and we are aware of these limitations. Our minds automatically generate an idea of a person without the physical imitations that we have, E.G. Superman. Every culture has a concept of a man who defies our abilities and performs superhuman tasks. Superman for example can run faster than a speeding bullet, lift a bus with one hand, and fly so fast he can turn back time (as seen in Superman 2). Superman is everything we are not and everything we wish to be. We have these ideas of all the perfections and an idea of it being in one being, but this is not to say that those ideas came from that being. We all dream of flying and superman is a result of that dream. These ideas can seem to be inherent to the human mind and likely are, but it does not prove the existence of a being just that we have an imagination.
The same can be said about Descartes idea of God, because he “did not draw it from the senses” and that “it never came to (him) unexpectedly”(50-51) it seems that the idea of God was a gift from God himself. However, it only seems that way, for God like superman is the incarnation of everything were not. God being the nonphysical counterpart to Superman has all the abilities we don’t see in ourselves and we unconsciously create a being of perfection to fill in the voids we, as a race, have. This is universal, from the Mesopotamian gods that brought the floods each year, to the God of Abraham who wrote the Ten Commandments. Humans rely and strive on an idea of God.

[Andy]

Originally posted by Landshark


i have hooked-up scoops.......does that mean i'm raw furry dawg?

YES

[Matthewmongan]

well thats the sumation of my thoughts on the subject. as a shaolin monk im inclined to doubt the teachings of church. note that boddhism is not a religion it is a philosophy. if we examin the history of religion take note that the masses idea of god or gods is based on their suroundings. for example the egyptians gods were believed to be benevelent and kind. they believed that their gods brought the steady flooding of the nile each year and the calm nonviolent manner in wich the nile flooded lends it self to their beliefs. however, the mesopotamians whos floods were violent and unpredictable lead them to believe that the gods were spiteful. science has explained the events of mosses' exodus witch is attributed to a super volcano in the mediterainian. it was shown on the discovery channel a while ago im sure if you do a search you'll see what im talking about. the religious rebuttle to this argument would be that god caused the volcano as to leave no trace of his/her existance. this is a valid argument. i believe in a god of philosophy, a creator that started the universe and placed in us an inate idea of himself on us as a mark of his craftmenship. i do not aggree with the church, their is too much control. god is not in a building made by man he is in living things and everything we see their is no need to conviene in a church or shrine to learn of god because all we can lear i within ourselfs. and i would imagine that god would not give us clues of his existance. if he were to help us and answer our prayers all the time we would become dependent. if he did nothing we would doubt his existance. the only logical conclusion is that he interviens (if he does at all) in a manner that we are completely oblivious off.

[Landshark]

I saw the Leprchaun. He tells me to burn things.

[lee]

Originally posted by Shadow248
...snip...DON'T LOOK AT IT!!!!...snip...

let's be logical for a moment...does that then imply you favor a child pornographer being able to post pictures of sexula assaults in public places - just don't look at it.

as to the purpose of referring to Article VI, it was merely to show that even before the Bill of Rights, there was a direct and concerted effort on the part of the formers of our early Government to remove the effects of religous control over public life. Consider: Article III says there is but one Supreme Court having jurisdiction over all judicial affairs even within a state when it is between a citizen and the state, and clause 2 of Article VI says judges in every state shall be bound by...etc. The recent case of the judge who refused to remove the 10 Commandments then was in violation of the US Constitution and should have been impeached. This is not the same as just don't look at it.

Originally posted by BurgundyBeast


THANK YOU! Christmas itself is not even celebrated as it should if you want to concider it a religious holiday.

Useless fact: The christmas tree is actually a quasi religious icon, though it's from a religon that is no longer followed today (Basically the Christian's killed all the followers). Basically, the Norse god Odin used to hang dead bodies on his sacred 'oak tree of Odin". Replace dead bodies with candles and then electric lights, poof. The modern Christmas tree, another pagan idea that was brutally stamped out by the peace loving turn the other cheek Christians.

- Jim

[lee]

Originally posted by BoondockSVX


...snip... brutally stamped out by the peace loving turn the other cheek Christians.

- Jim

not feeling inflamatory today are we?

Originally posted by lee


not feeling inflamatory today are we?

Just be lucky I don't come exterminate anybody who disagrees with me like the Christians did.

[Shadow248]

Originally posted by BurgundyBeast
1. Boondock never said he is an atheist, actually he admits to being religious.
2. An absence of something does not mean you are supporting it. I don't smoke pot, but does that mean I support it being illegal? I'm not wearing any red clothes right now, does that mean I have something against the color red? I don't have any black friends, does that make me racist?

About point 1 - I never said Boondock was an atheist. My examples using the word "you" were simply referring to the person (non-believer) that Boondock was using in his examples.

About point 2 - Different cases. Again, I have to remind you that I am speaking simply of the legal definition of religion. This thread came about questioning the legality of religious symbols in certain places. Therefore I speak only in a legal sense, and not so much with my personal feelings on the subject. It is a very specific case and general analogies such as the ones you used really do not work.



With all that was said in the Descartes thread, I don't see any point in saying much more. He's a bit nutty, but he has some points.

This one is the best:

The first theory that I will explore is Descartes’ idea that he is a “thinking thing”(49). This is accurate as the only thing a person can truly be sure of is it’s self. The external world is full of illusions witch can make it difficult to see the truth of reality. It is better to think of the human mind as a computer. All the computer knows is input data and the input data makes up the entirety of the computers existence. Thus for a machine what we call virtual reality is the same as reality. This concept conveys to the human mind, as we are build out of external senses. Ergo the only thing we are sure of existing is our mind.

Do you understand what I meant now?

I need to point out that in my ramblings I am not by any means trying to say that everyone needs to be a christian. I fully understand and support those who have different ideas. My "personal religion" is really not christianity...it just most closely resembles christianity. I took everything that I learned about all religions and decided what I MYSELF believed. Which i'm sure is what most of you did, even the non-believers. You simply have not experienced things in life that have proved (in your mind) that there is a God. I have.

[Whoru465]

I just wonder how a muslim would feel if he were in a court of law and surrounded by the ten commandments on the wall. Sending the wrong message methinks. If we're putting up the ten commandments we better put up important passages from the Koran, or from any other books of religion, so that no one feels left out. Or, we could just keep religion out of the government and let everyone feel more at ease. Might be easier than installing all of those artifacts....

[Shadow248]

Originally posted by Whoru465
I just wonder how a muslim would feel if he were in a court of law and surrounded by the ten commandments on the wall. Sending the wrong message methinks. If we're putting up the ten commandments we better put up important passages from the Koran, or from any other books of religion, so that no one feels left out. Or, we could just keep religion out of the government and let everyone feel more at ease. Might be easier than installing all of those artifacts....

What I don't understand is why it's such a big deal. Like I always say, I put myself in other's shoes to try to understand, and in this case, I don't. I really disagree with the Islamic belief system, however if I saw words of Islamic religion on the wall of a public place, I would simply not read them. They mean nothing to me because I am not an Islamic Believer, they are just words, and as such I can take them in as I wish. I would think that to a non-christian, the Ten Commandments would have no meaning, and therefore would be just like any other words that could possibly be on a wall. So why make a big deal out of it?