You are off to a great start judges don't exercise rights they exercise authority. The judge has the authority to redirect the verdict with regard to the law but he doesn't have the authority to change the verdict or the overrule the verdict based on the law because the jury may opt to nullify the law and they have the authority and the right to do so in America. It's unconstitutional to overrule a jury verdict he does have the authority to retry that part in contention. However juries are oftentimes misdirected by corrupt judges and it slips through the system because few jurors actually know the law much less understand it. Apparently you're not too familiar with mirka law. and it gets kicked right back down the lower court for retrial. So what's your point that a jury can't nullify law oh, they most certainly can and do. What country are you from anyway because you're not citing mercan law. good point should have been propaganda slogan. how about that sounds precisely like 'substance' eh? Exactly what I said! That may very well be the only Point you're willing to acknowledge from what I said however there is much more to be gained from what I said precisely that there isn't a person on the planet that doesn't have morals at some level morals being extremely easy to comprehend as religion regardless of what religion they claim word not. How you came to those conclusions I can't imagine but if you have a few morals that you absolutely live by you have a religion be it secular or deity it doesn't really matter whether you like it or not. In other words to claim that someone has no religion is also a claim they have absolutely zero morals it's not a difficult concept. Do you know anyone on the planet that has absolutely zero morals please enlighten us! no one said 'religion is required' to be moral what was actually said was that if you have morals you meet the requirements of the definition of religion whether you like it or not there's a big difference between your interpretation and what I said. that's right having an exercising morals is the most obvious in your face definition of a non- deity based and did non deity based religion. I hate to inform you but the US Supreme Court disagrees with you and so do I. You have the freedom to think whatever you want to think, you have the freedom to call your beliefs a turnip if you like , however that doesn't change the fact that morals that you live by and standby and exercise in your daily life as I said meet all the qualifications of a religion. You seem to be forgetting that secular humanism is in fact a religion right along with Buddhism and quakerism and Jainism and several other varieties of atheist non deity based religions. How you think of yourself and how you really are are two different things if that's your belief. I'm also an agnostic and I will be the first to stand up and tell you that I have lots of morals and those morals are in fact my religion I'm not all bent out of shape over the word 'religion' and I refuse to live in denial like you and so many neoatheists are doing today. like the one I just responded to above? Yours? You apparently forgot the Jim Crow laws! Those are extremely obvious there's a lot of laws on the books that are not so obvious but have the same result that I highly doubt you even know exist. It's all based in the design of the structure that we are given by government that could have a different structure should people ever able to think outside their being led around by the nose box that they were programmed to compliance from birth forward with little analytical thought and certainly without critical thinking. The gov offers you something that you want more than what they're taking away, very simple psychological strategy that the ignorant sucker for every time! See Idiocracy. of course , not from every imaginable angle , but it certainly puts big dents in it doesn't it it most certainly does it interferes with it in mirka you have the right to pray you have absolutely no right to 'exercise' your religion, the guv is in default how's the contract, with their judgments against the American people side of the deal regarding the BOR which by composite is part of the Constitution therefore in violation of the Constitution. if you wish to remain willfully to that fact by all means feel free to do so oh, that freedom you actually have. oh really? Well the law didn't stop Kennedy from being assassinated nor did it stop Lincoln from being assassinated. If what you said had any validity then the law would have stopped the bullet from hitting Kennedy and the bullet from hitting Lincoln but it didn't did it? All the law does is punish someone after the fact and that's provided you can catch them and that's provided that the charges stick you have an extremely grossly over simplified and unpractical view of these matters. No law is going to stop someone from assassinating you and to think otherwise is absolute foolishness. No one is in a better position to pull off an assassination than the government because they can cover their tracks by simply calling it National Security and nobody will see it until fifty to a hundred years after the perps are dead if the public is allowed to see it at all. Such dependence and childish understanding of law is a fantasy world built for people living in a fantasy daydream laws are made to support and maintain free range slavery but you have to have researched it to understand why anyone would even consider saying such a thing. Do you even know what the substance and qualities of enslavement is? Where did you get the crazy idea that you're free to kill somebody just because there's no law saying you will be punished if you do? If you think you're free to kill someone with impunity just because someone is living in a state of Anarchy you find out very quickly that you'd be dead with impunity by those who would avenge the death of the person you thought you could kill with impunity. The fact of the matter is this country was set up such that it could run in a 'near' complete state of Anarchy very efficiently and in a far better shape than it's in today. All you need is court cases and a court system that isn't corrupt, people come to know the law by Court decisions without some statutory over lord setting arbitrary standards and in the process equity would rules over the state equally with its citizens, contrary to our statutory overlord system that place is shortcut arbitrary rules designed to favor the state on law. of course it means exactly what I said it means it doesn't fit your grossly over simplified view of the world because it's very clear that you never researched the issue you are trying to argue so I certainly wouldn't expect you to understand it. The syntax is actually highly precise obviously the death of its meaning escapes you. I see no Challenge from you other than naked assertions. again nothing more than another naked assertion not one fact the back it up very typical of cognitive dissonance. What joke I didn't see any joke I seen political satire at some of its finest being put up to the crowd there was no joke, Carlins political satire is not joking it's reality there was no joke implied or intended and again you're just making up some crazy interpretation of the fact to downplay the truth. Whatever gave you the false impression that this country is a democracy of the people? It's not it's a republic the only part that's democracy is election day and in parliament. How many amendments did you vote on? Did you vote on abortion? Seems this country is controlled by Judge Dredd no different than England the courts in the government decide everything in your life. and your message clearly reveals the mindset of someone who's unresearched mouthpiece for the promotion of authoritarianism. yes! thanks for playing! ps, sorry about all the typos, will correct what I can get to before timeout
It's pretty basic. The Atheist rejects the idea of a supreme being. An atheist has given it a lot of thought and consideration. An agnostic doesn't accept or reject the idea of a Supreme Being, But the more refined definition of an agnostic is that they believe the ultimate answer to the existence of the universe and life is unknowable. Socrates, in my view, was your quintessential agnostic. His famous qoute ( paraprhased ) "if there is anything I do know, it's that I know absolutely nothing". That's the kind of viewpoint an agnostic would make. and then there the pantheist, which is approximately where I am, who believe that the universe, in it's entirety, IS God. But, in truth, I'm an agnostic when it comes to the supreme being, but I believe in the eternal soul and reincarnation. I.e, if there is a god, it is within each of us ( which is inclusive if without, hence pantheism, ie., the inner and the outer are, spiritually speaking, two sides of the same coin ). But, to qualify the above, I believe these things, but I do not "know" them for certain. I mean, I believe in reincarnation, but I wouldn't bet my life on it ! so, figure that one out.
Several States bar atheists from holding office per their State constitutions. The people can worship a blade of grass if they want to but they must say that they worship something that created everything.
Well if that is the only reason you are here, then I will thank you for your attempt at consideration, but you completely misunderstood my meaning. Though desiring a reply from the person, to whom one sends a "mentioned you," alert, is one possible motivation, it is not the only one. Allow me to answer your question (emboldened, above) & enlighten you. One of my reasons for name-checking you with the @, was out of my own ideas of propriety & consideration. Since I knew that you did not agree with my opinion-- which, though, is something that I was merely repeating, which I had already said, to your face-- I felt it, still, would be a little bit too much like talking behind another's back, to make what you consider to be false charges, w/out letting you know, in case you wished to "defend your honor." I was going beyond necessity, in this case because, not only was my brief summation-- which applies to this thread, as well, whether or not you can see that connection-- already well-documented, in your thread, which I referenced (albeit with a mistaken word; still, along with your name, it should not have been difficult to search for, if anyone cared to do so), but also, in that thread, I discovered you, a number of times, talking about me (w/ G.I.A.), behind my back, w/out the courtesy of using the @DEFinning , so that I would receive notice. But I kept to the high road, & alerted you. The other reason I, "summoned you," (which I would describe as merely, "sent you a notice") was because I felt it was possible, considering the similarities between this thread & your own (even if they reverse which category is taken to be, "the good guys," and which one is treated as, "the pariahs"), that you might actually wish to know of this thread; so, once again, it was an act of consideration, in my mind, not an attempt to summon you, for the purpose of arguing. Since, though, you clearly did come here 1) to not only fight with me, but to center your comments 2) on ME, personally, even though that is counter to forum rules; as well as to make the focus of your remarks 3) your own thread but, unlike my original post, not for the purpose of commentary on this thread (IOW, off-topic conversation-- I will point out, for at least the 3rd time in this thread, that you claimed you would never do this, in ANOTHER person's thread). Meanwhile, you continue throwing your stones at me (without examples, as is your custom), accusing me of supposedly doing the same thing, in your thread, as you continue your own, off-topic remarks, in this thread. To wit: A) unsupported accusations (unrelated to this thread)-- B) Off-topic, attempt to pick up your own thread, in this one (again, w/out it serving some sort of analogical function)-- gabmux said: ↑ What good is religion? I see no purpose for it*. If it ever had significance...whatever it's meaning was... has been diluted, lost or mutilated beyond recognition. Look around...what has religion done for humanity? People still killing each other off...still greedy, selfish, egotistical bast**ds... It's time to bury your religions. They are worthless and died long ago. <End Snip> This idea: that you were actually doing the thing, of which you were accusing me-- trying to hijack another person's thread-- was one of the main points of this, earlier post (if you missed the implication): ↑gabmux said Why not stick to the topic for a change... and leave your petty grievances for private conversations. ↑gabmux said Why are you lying? That thread was titled "What good is religion?" Here is the actual OP that you are referring to..... http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-good-is-religion.588493/ My topic did not infringe on anyone's rights.... it merely suggests that "religions" are not providing what was originally intended by their founders. If they had, this world would be at peace...not in ever increasing turmoil. What I claimed to be "off-topic" are the lies and personal attacks that you seem to enjoy so much ↑gabmux said You are still off topic. ↑gabmux said You've proved nothing....except that you are out of control. You've brought another topic into this thread. Why not go back to the topic you are quoting from and discuss it there? ↑gabmux said I don't mind side conversations in my own thread. But why are you hijacking someone else's thread? ↑gabmux said Of course you would. YOU crave attention. FYI: my two quotes, I had thought it would be obvious, had been intended as ironic. *I might as well at this point, address, your other post's flaccid self-defense: IF that had been ALL that you had said, then, of course. But you had more criticisms of religion, than that (in case you have forgotten). Look at the purplish text, above. If this were true, that the purpose of your post was nothing more than to suggest that religions had not lived up to all their hype, it seems gratuitously insulting, to add the line, from your OP, "They are worthless..." And, if you are not BLAMING religions for all the problems of the world, which you cite, what would be the necessity of telling people that it is time for them to, "bury your religions?" This is an appropriate place to address one more of your recent replies: Putting aside that I believe you told me that you have no children, and just taking this as an analogy for what your thread proposed to do-- as it had been my failed intent to show you what I had considered inappropriate about your thread, with my dead dog scenario-- let me compare these two, to one last time, try to get my point across. You compare telling people that they should bury their RELIGION, to you telling your son, that it was time to bury his dead dog. Right? The first error, in this analogy, is that every religious person, reading your thread, not to mention those throughout the world, for whom it is meant to apply, ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN. A parent has an enhanced authority, & even a responsibility, to tell his kids things that they may not want to hear. That parental right does not apply to everyone else you meet. Therefore it would be an understatement, to call it presumptuous, on your part, to tell strangers to bury their dead dogs, even if that was all that you were doing. But-- & it is a mystery as to why you would not realize this-- the practitioners of all the world's religions, at whom your comment is directed, do not BELIEVE THAT THEIR RELIGIONS ARE DEAD. Had you felt you had presented such a case, that no religious person could read it without being persuaded, I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you of your epic failure, in that regard. So, the ACCURATE analogy, would be your going up to a stranger, who clearly not only believes his dog is alive, but has a deep love & abiding affection for his dog (god), and telling him that, to YOUR mind, it's past time he dug a hole & dumped his worthless husk of a canine, into it. Does that really not seem at all nervy, disrespectful, rude, inappropriate, or impolite, to you?
Okay, "authority' then, and you are correct, that is the appropriate term. Score one for Kokomojojo. But, you wrote: Judges have gotten away with jury tampering by nullifying juries, because in this country the jury is the final arbiter of the law NOT the supreme court. Says who, you? First off, your use of the term 'jury tampering' is incorrect. Like I said, a redirected verdict, challengeable or not, does not equal 'jury tampering'. Here you are using the term 'jury tampering' as a sentiment, not as legally precise statement. Your point that SCOTUS can kick a case back down (and thus implying SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the law/constitution, etc ) is specious logic. Why? Because if, indeed, SCOTUS kicks a case back down, SCOTUS is saying, 'let the lower court's ruling stand'. See? In ultimate terms, that IS a SCOTUS decision. When SCOTUS reaffirms, either that of the lower court or of upholding case law, is just as much being the final arbiter of the law as if the court ruled on it, itself. Do you not see this? We are still at the place where SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law. It actually remains so when it upholds case law and the decisions of lower courts. So which judges are you implying are 'corrupt', hmmm? I mean, you seem to traffic in innuendo, but you don't name names. Tsk, tsk. Mirka who? No, I've not heard of it. Unless it's that case against Cuomo. At first, you gave me the impression you are a lawyer. But, upon scrutinizing your English, I changed my mind. You are not a lawyer. Your ability to articulate the English language doesn't strike me as on par with what an actual lawyer would write. It's a tad sloppy. But, if you are a lawyer, you wouldn't be the first lawyer in history with sloppy English. Moving on.... You English is sloppy. Please tell me you are not a lawyer, and I will forgive you Here is the essence of what you wrote: You wrote that only religious people can be moral. That is the essence of what you wrote. Did you, or did you not, in essence, make that point? And, your reasoning is that those who believe in God, or are Atheists, are both religious, either of having a religion or by upholding the belief that there is no God, and that that, as a way of life, is also religious. You reached that conclusion because you believed that covered just about everyone, except, as you put it, those who might be in a coma. So, your reasoning assumes that those two categories covers all moral people. But that isn't true, either, you forgot about the agnostic. Here are the facts: History is replete with moral religious people, criminal religious people, and shady religious people. History is replete with virtuous atheists, criminal atheists, and shady atheists. But agnostics are not religious. Though I would argue against, but I'll accept that you can claim 'atheism' is a religion, but I will not accept that you claim claim agnosticism is a religion. Because someone who claims that the existence of God is unknowable, cannot possibly be religious. By what creed? Agnostics have no creed, no congregation, no belief system, they go about life without concern for such a thing. But, most agnostics are moral people. Because, operating in a fashion in life that doesn't want to hurt people is the natural order of things. Acting naturally does not equal being religious. It's not only a difficult concept, it's a ridiculous concept. Question has an incorrect premise. Therefore, wrong question. The correct question is: "Do you know anyone without religion who is moral?" Yes, most of my agnostic friends, me, included. [QUOTE no one said 'religion is required' to be moral what was actually said was that if you have morals you meet the requirements of the definition of religion whether you like it or not there's a big difference between your interpretation and what I said. [/QUOTE] Highlighted is false. Being a moral person, per se, does not make one religious. They are the arbiters of the Constitution, but not philosophy. First off, I'm going to dispense these labels, 'atheism' and 'agnosticism'. There is no inherent requirement to be religious in order to be moral. A moral person, by moral acts, alone, doesn't constitute religious acts. Being moral is the natural order of life. we are good because being good contributes to life. Being moral, in and of itself, has nothing to do with religion. And one thing I"m quite certain about, if I'm certain about anything, it is this: Religion doesn't have a monopoly on goodness. Doesn't negate my point, that religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals. Doesn't negate my point, that religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals. No, I'm not an agnostic, I'm a pantheist. You should qualified your statement, then. Aren't JC laws repealed? Aren't most bad laws not being enforced? Still, the bulk of laws today do not equal slavery. You're ranting. What is your point? What did I say? Whatever it is I said, there is no way in hell you can draw such an inference. I did not say the law will prevent you from commiting a crime, but it will eventually catch you ( and thus stop you ). Not all the time, but much of the time. Free range slavery? What, we're in a chicken farm now? I do not consider living in a society with rules and laws as slavery, but apparently you do. Okay, you're referring to my statement about Anarchy. Okay, let's just put it this way, whatever you think Anarchy is, is it NOT freedom. Anarchy is fantasy. What are you ranting about? What is the point? What, precisely, are you implying? Spit it out, mon. We get it, you don't like laws that you don't like. Well, that's life. When you see a stop sign, I suggest that you stop. So, Goethe says if you believe you are free, then you are a slave. I have no idea how seasoned you are in the arena of the debate, but as a debate strategy, pithy aphorisms do not, nor will they ever, in and of themselves, prove a point. You can, on occasion, color your argument with them, but you can't rely on them, solely, for proof of a point. Comedians are wonderful entertainers, but, similar to the pseudo debate strategy of relying on the pithy aphorism to prove a point, same goes for comedians. Pepper your argument with their words, but do not make their words the salient basis for your point. I mean, I can link to a long diatribe on the business world by Carlin, and I could quote him to butress a point that all business are out to screw you, would the video of Carlin admonishing the business world prove the point? No, it wouldn't. Comedians are good for laughs, and that's it. America is a 'liberal democracy'. The term has a much broader meaning that just elections. A republic can mean a government of appointed or elected leaders. You have to qualify it. America is a constitutional republic. In the constitution, it spells out the nature of our democracy, as in representative democracy. The terms 'liberal democracy' and 'constitutional republic' are NOT mutually exclusive. Apparently, someone told you you are a slave and you believed it. How sad for you.
Explain what constitutes a moral and what constitutes religion. How sad for you, someone told you that you are free, and you believed it.
Why? You explain it. You do realize that two different things can have something in common, but that doesn't mean one is the other. The Pope wears a white garb, and I can wear white garb, that doesn't make me a Catholic. Religion can do charitable work, and I can do charitable work, but that doesn't mean I'm religious. How sad for you, you are a slave to your own false beliefs. I am free, totally free to reject your falsehoods. Not ot mention the fact that you didn't negate any of my points.
Interestingly, we have a lot in common, spiritually, if one goes just by labels. I, myself, have been a pantheist, of differing incarnations, for 35 years. For a while, during the first half of that period, I associated with a good number of pagans, and have met many more. I, numerous times, attended the largest pagan festival in the Northeast, Starwood, which, back then, ranged from 1300 to 2000 attendees (and was continuing to get bigger, but not necessarily better). I have attended, & participated, in various types of unconventional ceremonies. I have NEVER met another person who had identified themself as a pantheist. In fact, I once saw a pagan-poll that showed, even among this fringe group in our society, pantheists are quite the rarity. IIRC, only between 1 and 2% of those polled (in other large pagan gatherings), called themselves pantheists. I am, BTW, an old-school pantheist, seeing all Creation as invested with, and a manifestation of, the Divine. I might even go so far as to say, "part & parcel of," the Divine, but that would confuse the distinction I wish to make between the pre-historically originating pantheistic view, that there is an unseen reality underpinning the material world, and the variant of pantheism that is predominant in our modern world, in which the "spiritual," element has been removed. That is, most pantheists today revere the universe as something "sacred," in & of itself, apart from any belief in a uniting Universal Spirit, other than physical laws. It sounds like you have a toe in both pools, with your OP, in the thread about your, "postulate," leaning in the prevailing, contemporary direction, but your belief in an eternal soul & in reincarnation being more in line with older thinking, & traditions. What I really find noteworthy, though, is a that you combine this with agnosticism, because I have only recently observed that I have been drifting closer to this designation. For clarity's sake, let me explain. Throughout my time outside of conventional religion, I have taken as a given, that there is no way that one can be certain of what exists beyond this life. But I never associated myself w/ an agnostic viewpoint, because I did not accept as the corollary to that acknowledged uncertainty, as it was my impression that "classic," agnostics did accept, that there was, then, no point in trying to gain any insight into the deeper Truth. So I have had various, speculated, conceptions-- of ourselves being as cells in a Universal Body, for one (hence giving truth to the phrase that God made man in his own image), both insignificant, in our solitary being, & yet containing, within ourselves, knowledge of the whole, as does every one of our body's cells hold a full blueprint of the whole, in its DNA-- yet have always thought of these things not as ultimate Truth, but as just my current image, which I was willing, at any time, to change. In fact, because of this understood caveat, after whatever I might find the presently intriguing conceptualization, that, "but I'm probably wrong," it has been no difficulty to hold very different models in my mind, simultaneously, and not be troubled by any seeming contradictions between them. But I do not wish to overly impose on your time. For whatever reason, whether it be a natural progression, or merely the result of my dissipating vitality, I have recently, as I said, thought much less about such potential Grand Designs, to more resemble an agnostic, even if I do, occasionally, still have my moments of inspiration. But, the point of my reply, is actually not specifically any of that, though it can all be thought of as its basis: you didn't really answer my question. You had drawn what seemed an arbitrary line, to me, to say that atheism is a religion, but agnosticism, is gnot. I don't feel that your response, as to why you think of them that way, made very much of a case for that distinction, if you will forgive me for saying so. If you would be so kind, I'd like to rephrase what I took from your reply, & have you correct/modify it, to what seems to you, as a valid differentiation. Basically, the only thing that unites the religious, and atheists, is CERTAINTY. Agnostics, of course, admit the obvious truth, that no one can be sure. I don't see this as a credible basis for distinguishing agnostics as "irreligious." As I mentioned, I always understood that there were no assurances that my understanding was correct, even as I more actively practiced, devoted energy into, & had certain, tentative faith in, what would qualify as religious practices, and "beliefs." Further, if truth be known, I am sure the degree of certainty held in their religions, varies widely, among individuals, in most religions (did you ever see the Simpson's episode, in which it momentarily seems that some space alien cult had actually been correct, and Reverend Lovejoy casts his faith away like spoiled fish?). Even those who are included among the "religious," have their doubts, their crises of faith, when they are tested by life and, maybe most, with the proximity of death. So certainty, is no criterion for passing judgement. You also assert that both atheists & believers in religions, give much thought to their view, with the implication being that agnostics do not. Again, I do not think this idea of yours is based in fact. I'm sure some people are atheists precisely because they have never given it any thought. There are also those who, for the legally definitive purposes which occasioned this subtopic, would be defined as having a religion, though that might boil down to going to church on Christmas & Easter, being married in a church & baptizing their children, for example. Their "religion," is, more accurately, family & cultural traditions, and they give little thought, at all, to the religious belief system which chance has handed them. Lastly, you & I are, I am sure, not the only two agnostic-type people, who have come to their theological perspective, as a RESULT, of much contemplation. So, on all counts there, as well, I see no legitimate basis for classifying atheism a religion, and agnosticism as something else. In short, why can't certainty of one's ignorance, in matters of the spiritual or Divine, be the central beam-- equivalent to acceptance or rejection of God's existence, or other religious tenets-- that supports the agnostic's religion & personal church?
You quoted my post below, highlighting "My son's dog died".... Then you try to imply that I am being disingenuous below.... You are spreading misinformation again. Where is the quote that I made such a claim to have no children? The fact is, I have three children, 5 grandchildren, and 1 great grand child. This is what you have been doing all along. You make things up in your head accuse me of them, and then start throwing stones. And if I throw them back.....you pretend to be a victim. If anything...you are a victim of your own mind...like most people. Try to find a quote of mine that is not merely a defense against your misinformation.
You have quite an imagination there... Can't wait to see how you spin this one... If you were diabetic with an attachment to sugar, and I said to you that "sugar is not helping your condition...you should let go of it "... am I condemning sugar? Am I condemning you? Or am I..... Do you see how you are redesigning my posts to fit your own narrative, and then accusing me of being you?
No. But to get a lawsuit to the appellate courts and have it struck down, you need a plaintiff who is actually banned from holding office for being an atheist. Nobody is 'enforcing' these statutes and no jurisdiction would be stupid enough to provide a testcase and invite the cost of defending the statute.
Leading question. Atheism is protected under the concept of religion. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. More vaguely, think of it as a freedom of belief. If a state really starts advocating a ban of atheism you’re in some dire territory.
It's kind of silly arguing over things like 'atheism' religion, 'pantheism' agnosticism. The right thing to do as convey who you are, and take it at face value. I reject the idea that an agnostic has a religion. I also reject the idea that everyone who is moral is religious. I reject it because those who ascribe 'religion' to the agnostic, are merely trying to make the argument that it is impossible to be moral and not religious, so they will contort the language to fit that view. Hey, if someone tells me they are not religious, I take them at their word. And if they say they are moral, I take them at their word, and therefore, it is entirely possible to be moral and not religious, but I"m not talking about me, in that, not at all. I have no religion. They way I see the world, those who have a religion are actually irreligious. However, if they tell me they are religious, I'll accept it, at face value. Who am I to say? However, I can think about it any way I want. So I'll give you some of my thoughts on it, if you will indulge me for a moment. Religion is not something that you can 'have', there is no religion, there is only religiousness. To be religious, it's a quality, not something you possess, Today, religion is all about trappings, ceremonies, words on paper, codes of conduct, well, in my view, none of that equals religion. I believe Christ was an enlightened being, but I don't believe his true teachings are in the Bible, I believe he taught those in his innermost circle some very esoteric stuff, and parts of it shine through on the Gospel of Thomas ( there are a couple of lines in that text that shout 'these can only be the words of an enlightened being" ) Academically speaking, I understand that isn't correct, (my view on religion versus religiousness) but I don't care, I"m not really trying to argue the point. I'm just relaying my own spirituality. Some say God wrote the bible. I say nonsense. Either God wrote, and IS all books , or none. The ultimate truth cannot be known, not by the mind, (hence agnostic ) anyway because the ultimate truth does not exist in space and time, and no matter how hard the mind tries, the very act of trying creates distance between it and the individual to be religious is to celebrate existence for no other reason that to celebrate it for it's own sake, Religiousness says yes to existence. I have no religion, but I consider myself deeply religious. My religiosity has no creed, no congregation, it has absolutely nothing. Except one thing. Silence. My religion is silence in it's purest most essential form. My religion is dance, it is music, it is joy, it is life, it is the entirety of everything, and that is God. God is not a personal god, that looks over your shoulder, making notes you are bad, when you are good, those are the concepts of antiquity, I reject all that crap. When I say 'silence' to I mean physical silence? No! I can be inwardly silent when talking to you, while playing an instrument, or using a saw or walking down the road. Silence is a state of awareness, (some call it 'mindfulness' ) not something one does ( like sit down and shut up ). I had a spiritual experience once, I looked in zen/taoist writings to see if there was a word for what happened ot me. The terms that come the closest, were kenshō and satori. I do get these terms mixed up, however. Achieving enlightenment is permanent. But, you can get a glimpse of it, experience temporality, that is Kensho ( or Satori ) Kind of like seeing enlightenment through a keyhole, but you can see it, in all it's glory. What I realized at the moment it happened, was, let's see if I can come close to describing, noting that it can't actually be described, because it does not occur in time and space, and it is impossible for the mind to see it, but it can be 'seen' or 'experienced' but directly. So, the best way I could describe it is like this; When you experience the 'tao', even if only kensho, life as you have known it, life in all it's complications, ups, downs, life has you have always known it, what happens when the experience envelops you, life, as you have known it becomes moot. Totally moot. Life doesn't disappear, though it might if you go deeper into it ( I didn't, I flinched and came back ). The only 'ism' that makes sense to me is pantheism. Because in pantheism, there is no duality, just as there is no duality in the experience, the inner and the outer merge into one thing and life becomes moot. Now, I haven't actually read much on pantheism beyond looking it up in the dictionary, it's just the term that appeals to me. I'm defining above. And then you are in for one big, hardy laugh, it's a real shocker, trust me. Now, when I say the universe is God, it's just a hunch, hell, who the **** knows? One can know the self, thought, that is possible. There is no activity more useless, silly, no more wasting of time, than arguing about God, and to argue about God, really, is to be irreligious. So, perhaps God and the self are the same. My hunch is that that is true. Just a hunch, though. Socrates was brilliant. I have a hunch that Socrates did not exist, and the true Socrates is Plato. Why? Have you ever tried to sit down and write down, word for every word, what another says? Yet that is what Plato claims to have done. But it would be entirely possible if Plato and Socrates are the same person, eh? That is why I believe it. Plato created Socrates because Plato is merely being humble. And that convinces me even more.
Well I’m an atheist who is ironically superstitious. Not for any other good reason other than to make of use of the random bullshit around my house. i disagree on one thing, and it’s big. Enlightenment is not permanent, it is brief. A small piece of us that exists every once in a while.
I am sorry that I misremembered our private conversation. But that was all it was, a simple mistake (as with your thread title). To read all this nefarious intent, on my part, IMO, signals a vastly exaggerated paranoia which, while it may not qualify as pathological, nor does it seem normal. And, do you not see, that your paranoid accusations of my misinformation-- which, of course, are nothing you can factually confirm, though you present them as verifiable truth-- are actually MUCH WORSE slurs against my character, than my saying, "Putting aside that I believe you told me that you have no children, and just taking this as an analogy for what your thread proposed to do-- as it had been my failed intent to show you what I had considered inappropriate about your thread, with my dead dog scenario..." To consider this, me trying, "to imply that (you are) being disingenuous," is ridiculous! Perhaps this was only my impression, about your not having kids, because of your lack of sharing those sort of basic details that most people, over a personal friendship lasting many months, would have mentioned. I do not recall your EVER having mentioned having children. Perhaps this was a mis-assumption, on my part. But the offense you give, with your outrageous charges, far outweighs any damage to your reputation, from my simple error. I was merely setting straight, what I took to be the case, that both of us were presenting an analogy, for the same purpose. If I understood that your story was the recounting of an actual experience, the only difference this would make, in my thinking, is that I would then want to confirm that this was not just some tangential story you were telling, related to my analogy, as opposed to your own attempt to mirror my analogy with one that you thought better described your thread. It was not just a random story, I take it. So I showed that your analogy of a parent, talking to a child, about something that both supposedly had personally known, and which both recognized as now dead, was in no way applicable to telling adult strangers, that they should bury a religion that, to them, feels very alive, because you, who may not even have an intimate, or any, acquaintance with their religion, consider it to be dead. Your neighbors must shudder whenever they see you taking one of your walks around the block, shovel slung over your shoulder like an infantryman's rifle, & wait in dread, for the offer, they know you will repeat, when you reach their yard, "Do you want me to bury your cat, for ya?" (neighbor): But Mitzy's not dead! (gabmux): No trouble-- one whack is all it should take. If it moves-- two swings, tops. I have caught a glance at the rest of your hypocritical post: All OFF-TOPIC; all focused ON ME, not even on an off-topic ARGUMENT; and full of personal attacks, on me, alleging a long (but ever undocumented) history of my attacking you. I have no interest any of this. If I can leave you with personal advice: it may be beneficial for you to look into getting professional help; they even offer it online, now.
I accept what the sages say about enlightenment, and all of them tell us it is permanent. Though I accept the possibility it is not. But, they say it is, and so that is what I believe, for now.
I agree 100% with your comment, highlighted in red. If you recall, in fact, I said that I would maintain that it is, "entirely possible to be moral and not even human." So you certainly have no basis whatsoever, to include me in your all-inclusive statement, "those who ascribe 'religion' to the agnostic are merely trying to make the argument that it is impossible to be moral & not religious." I am sorry that you are forcing me to point out that you are being disingenuous. You know, very well, that "morality," never even entered into the question. I had never really given these academic questions, you speak of, any thought. I was responding to what I found to be your very curious division (in my mind) of grouping atheists along with the religious, but separating agnostics, all on their own. I merely asked for you to explain your rationale, as it had not seemed clear to me, in your original post. If you will not take offense at my being frank, I am now getting the impression that your original argument did not really arise organically, from this thread (at which point I believe we were all focused on what the SCOTUS would consider to be entitled to protection, under the freedom of religion, if I'm not mistaken). Rather, I would now guess that this is some ongoing argument, between you & Kokomojojo, that was showing its head. Not being a part of all that, when I earnestly asked if you could explain the thinking that led to your counter-intuitive conclusion, I am sensing, now, that you are having trouble justifying it, and as so are trying to shrug it off. If you find that you had put your argument too far out on a limb, to be able to get it back to a factual grounding, that is fine, with me. I am not here with a thirst for the blood of proving someone else wrong. I just prefer that you be straightforward about mis-speculations, rather than vanish in a fog of oblique points and dismissiveness. I can then, be easily disposed to looking at an argumentative stumble, much as seeing someone take on tumble, on the slopes (skiing). If one is not willing to push oneself to the limits of one's abilities, one cannot expect to expand those limits. No one gets good at anything, without making mistakes; it is from the falls, that we sometimes learn the most (to toss on one more platitude, for good measure). I would submit that the average person would not consider either atheists, or agnostics, generally, as being religious. But when thinks about specific cases, one can find exceptions, most readily among agnostics, though-- not atheists. By the time we have abstracted religion to be analogous to a philosophy, or view of one's existence, therefore including atheists, I can see no logical reason why, at that point, agnosticism would become excluded. I can, then, understand one as seeing this as a mostly academic exercise, though that would be contingent upon the context. Regarding what philosophies of religion-- if we can call them that-- our Constitution guarantees us the right to which to ascribe & to practice, these designations, may become relevant. Essentially, I think religion, or whatever unites the catena of one's spiritual experience, is a person's relationship with Creation, or with Being (depending upon how one prefers think of it), which includes one's place in that whole and, typically, some governing force, a.k.a. God. If one replaces the spiritual nature of this force, with non-spiritual forces, that is what shifts religion to philosophy. Even though it is not hard to find a group of people who share a belief of the universe, & all w/in it, as being governed by certain physical laws, for example, that does not mean that all will have the same philosophy, or experience life in the same way. Likewise, sharing the same God, does not mean one's personal relationship w/ the Divine is scripted, and is still not individual and, in its own ways, unique. It seems kind of silly to me, honestly, for someone who has chosen to visit the Religion topic section of a debate forum, to assert that it is silly to argue over religious terminology. Again, a strange place to see this comment... maybe you are actually a "Discordian." This sounds like the well-worn viewpoint of what is usually described as, "spirituality," vs. "religion." You use the spirituality term yourself, later on. To generalize: all the trappings are the Religion, while the transcendental experience at the core of the religion, is Spirituality. Each one can, & does, also exist independently of the other. I will, semantically, note that for the pantheist, transcendent is the wrong word, as that implies rising above Creation; this is the most basic difference between it and other religions, in which deities rule a universe which they supercede, and watch from outside. In pantheist perception, the Divine is not transcendent, but immanent, that is, dwelling within the Creation (& so that is where one will find it). I will have to pick up here, next time.
false its pure reality of course you do, you just deny the fact Starting to straddle the deep end with that one! Sure you can, just like you can have character, morals, beliefs, thoughts, they all belong to you and no one else. As I just said sure you can and do, its a set of principles, think of it like ethics/philosophy that you 'live' by. yep Like I said, try to stay on the shallow side of the deep end. Sure it does, you just wrote a huge creed in your previous post. fair enough, whatever religion floats your boat. The most accepted definition of religion is that to which one is bound. (in reference to obligations) not so much recreation. God most certainly is personal, now if I were to take it to antiquity, you would not necessarily be required to choose your own G/god, others can choose it for you. Like it or not there are G/gods for 'everything' imaginable. Its perfectly legitimate for someone through observations of your 'actions' (morals...ie:religion) that you worship the god koalemos. I am not saying or inferring that is you, merely making a 'strong' point. Koalemos In Greek mythology, Koalemos (Ancient Greek: Κοάλεμος) was the god of stupid How do you propose one escapes G/god(s) when everything imaginable has an existing, defined, assigned G/god persona? I disagree with your agreement.
I suppose how one defined "moral," would make a huge difference; if you disagree with my agreement, that one needn't be religious, in order to be moral, there's a good chance we would disagree over the definition of moral. But this might turn it into more of a semantic argument. I prefer the pragmatic type.
nope, I use the 'substantial' definition of religion as I defined in that post, not the popularized version limited to a deity. Its not morals we would disagree on it religion, unless you think religion creates the moral, it doesnt, religion is your composite/comprehensive belief system that you live by. The pecking order is thought > belief > morals > religion > culture. You make a conclusion, your conclusion forms a belief, you live by that belief now an exercised moral, which is a religion in substance, which leads to many people who agree with your religion, which evolves in to a culture. Religion is the strongly held beliefs you 'exercise', and live by, self governance, not philosophy, not ethics.
your religion its the resulting 'actions' based in your philosophy/ethics/beliefs the resulting actions is your religion 'exercised' well there is more to religion than just morals, but thats the obvious one obligations of conscience, that to which you are bound to
Well you have lost this argument. But first, I want to make clear that I am not beginning, right now, any argument other than the one that just came about, from your post. So here is the laying of the foundation: it is entirely possible to be moral and not religious So you disagree, that it is possible to be moral, but not religious. My first proof is straight from your own mouth: You list MORALS as COMING IN ADVANCE OF RELIGION. So, it is not only POSSIBLE, but the normal order of development, for morals to come before religion. Let me restate that: YOU said that an entire community of people would have morals, first, and then develop religion. So, if religion has yet to come into being, among some group, that has developed morals-- as your flow chart says can proceed from pre-religious belief-- how is that not a whole bunch of people, who could not yet possibly be religious, who still have morals? I remind you of Patricio's claim: it is entirely possible to be moral and not religious. With which I 100% agreed. And you disagreed, despite, earlier, claiming that to be the way that it works. I guess I don't even need a second proof.
Lol...astonishing! I gave you plenty of personal info...including my whole work history....even my email address. And when I asked about your life....do you recall what you replied? Something about it being complicated maybe? In any case...here are the facts..... As you have said, we've had private conversations before. A substantial part of those conversations (at least on my part) had to do with religion. At anytime you could have continued those talks concerning religion and aired any grievances you might have had. I suggested at the start of your sideshow here, that you return to the thread you have a problem with, instead of hijacking this thread. Those two options above...you ignored completely. You summoned me here by way of @gabmux and misquoted my topic from "What good is religion?" to "What good is God?" Completely different ideas. When I called attention to your behavior... this was your response.... There are currently at least three other threads with a similar message as "What good is religion?" http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-is-the-point-of-the-bible.590828/ http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/so-god-wrote-a-book.590087/page-6#post-1072845812 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...lly-fairy-tales.590783/page-2#post-1072840747 none of which you have expressed any objection to. Your reasons for this behavior clearly have nothing to do with religion or even my thread. So what exactly is your motivation?
