Berthold

There are several versions of the Gaia hypotheses. Anyone who speaks of "debunking" must mean one that is severely distorted from the original.

TruthPrevails

you will note that i mentioned

which would include main religion like Christianity, Islam, the Incas, etc.
In the past and even now, humanity is dominated by the lower brain, i.e. the reptillian and limbic which are mostly emotional driven. Theism (not discounting, that would also include atheists as well) was/is driven from these emotional basis of fear, etc., .

Based in the principles of the Bell Curve or Normal Distribution, there will be bound to be exceptions in lower % from the majority. For example, mystics of the various religions, practice & expound 'higher' teaching and use the more tolerant 'softer' approach. There are other minority practices on the spiritual fringes that are not aggressive.

I was only trying to stick to the topic of the thread, i.e. theism or its opposite atheism. Humanity covers a very extensive spectrum of life and we will have to wait till the cow come home if we were to sidetrack to far.

ps. if i really want to understand human nature, the best bet is to study the pivotal proximates, i.e. impact of every neuron in the human brain, individually and in a whole brain & the DNA, to understand how they influence human behaviors within our earth's environment.

0

Christianity and Islam are ancient? I think you have a smaller yardstick to measure time with than I do.
As for your characterization of "barbaric," I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. Perhaps you can expand on this point.
The religions of ancient Egypt, the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia encompassed and encouraged architecture, agriculture and science (medicine and surgical procedures are included in this as religion and science were often not seen as separate things).
If you are speaking of solely of living sacrifices (like sati, for example) or forceful indoctrination/inquisitions or the caste system, then that is another matter which goes back to what I said about the literalization of fluid, symbolic concepts. And these occurred mainly when religion is mixed with the political power structure of the times, which makes their rituals claim higher numbers. As time went on, smaller cults that practiced such rites were generally feared, yet outnumbered by their more peaceful counterparts.
Explain to me the minority non-aggressive religious practices from 3500 B.C. that predate the religions you speak about? What about the sects based on the Annunaki, Annu or the Mother Goddesses? Were they not composed on a "softer approach" and a sense of unity/connection/tolerance with all that is found in most religions today? That "higher teaching" you speak of originated from these groups where mystics were the rule, not the exception.
Or am I just not understanding what you are saying?

I stand by my point that ideology of any sort will not encompass all of humanity. Recognizing that we are all human, will.

ps. if i really want to understand human nature, the best bet is to study the pivotal proximates, i.e. impact of every neuron in the human brain, individually and in a whole brain & the DNA, to understand how they influence human behaviors within our earth's environment.[/QUOTE]
And what would you do with this knowledge?

My two cents,
Tangie

TruthPrevails

I am not sure what ideology you are referring to. I had expressed my personal views, if you say such are 'idelogies', then,
isn't your insistent point above, another of those "any-sort" incomplete ideology?

I doubt you know what is it to be human, probably it is only limited to your personal ideology. However as i mentioned below if we study the core engine of a human. i.e. the brain and mind, we stand a better chance of knowing ourselves.

I am surprised at your question. Didn't society fear the 'iron horse' once. Someone also mentioned that telephone and computer were useless inventions once upon a time.

I am hypothesizing based on humanity's trend of riding the waves of advance knowledge including those on knowing ourselves. Even though i acknowledge modern advance knowledge can be a double-sided sword, on the positive side it had brought about a lot of advancement to humanity in terms of medicines, scientific researches on brain and mind, etc.

When the earth gravitate towards to Sun and be burnt dried, advance knowledge will come useful to the human specie to move to other galaxies. If the earth is threatened by an earth bound meteorite, advance scientific knowledge is necessary to divert the threat.
Meanwhile, advance knowledge about ourselves is necessary to resolve planetwide problems with humans as one team.
"If you fail to plan, you plan to fail", is applicable to the preservation of the human specie.

The theist's belief & faith maybe still useful in our current age but not effective to handle the future?

0

What I refer to is your assertion that atheism is going to be a dominant trait in the coming age capable of meeting the challenges humanity will face.
My stance is that I don't know exactly how humanity is going to adopt a view about the existence or non-existence of God that will encompass every individual and is even relevant to issues like global warming and declining resources. That's what I'm saying. What does one have to do with the other?

Further, I asked several questions about your stance on ancient religions. Christianity and Islam are, by far, youthful teenagers on the scene. In comparison to other religions, Christianity (and Judaism) was also considered largely "backwards" in the beginning because of its rhetoric regarding a singular, all-powerful god who demanded all-encompassing devotion.
It was a fusion of political power and religion that catapulted Christianity into the heights that it has been.
I also wonder about these "minority" practices of "higher" religion that you spoke of.

I don't know what it is to be human? What an odd statement. I am in no way "limited" by my ideology. If I was, I wouldn't state that my views may change over time or be open minded enough to accept other viewpoints. I'm fully capable of saying "I don't know." At one time, I was an atheistic Buddhist. So I am hardly closeted by my belief structure nor am I against science.
My husband, who is an atheist, works in the field of psychology and medical research. He fully agrees with me that the study of the brain and mind are woefully inadequate. And like me, he wonders what the "higher levels" of the brain are that you refer to in your posts. So my questions have more to do with attempting to understand YOUR views rather than being sheltered by my own.
Why? My question arose not out of fear, but curiousity.
I don't agree that our advanced knowledge has brought us greater insights into ourselves. I think that it has, instead, brought us more questions and more complicated situations.
We have conquered some diseases and merely strengthened others. We have greater power to pollute and destroy the earth and ourselves. Uneven distribution of resources has the problems of world poverty, disease, and starvation still very much on the scene. We are still extremely primative in knowing the mechanisms of the mind and brain. And our species is still seeking ever elusive happiness/satisfaction that a study of the brain may never fully address.
Perhaps we will make it into space and seek other places of habitat. And when we do, we will take these same problems with us, whether we are atheist or theist. Humanity is divided on a wider scale than just religion.

My two cents,
Tangie

Worldtraveller

[Mod Note: I just want to note that this is one of the more interesting, enlightening, and civil threads we've seen in GRD lately. In spite of differences of opinion, all participants have kept things on topic and addressed the core issues.

As a mod, I just want to say....thanks. [/Mod Note]:thumbs:

Cheers,
Lane

Worldtraveller

tang, it's odd, after reading your posts, your beliefs still strike me as being more atheistic than theistic.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong in labelling yourself how you want (obviously).

On second thought, it seems like you are more of a deist than atheist. But your views are uniquely your own, so I'm not sure any of the common labels really fit well.

Cheers,
Lane

Yahzi

I don't understand this. You seem to be saying that you can a) hold certain beliefs about life and the universe, and b) not allow them to influence your actions.

If you find yourself restricting yourself to science whenever you do something important like medicine, then what does that say about your metaphysics? It seems to imply that they are just for fun, and not to be confused with real, useful knowledge.

Not that there's anything wrong with having fun - I love "Lord of the Rings", and am transported to a different reality every time I read it. But I suspect you put your beliefs in a different class than I put "LotR." And it is that difference I do not understand.

Not quite. You seem to have defined your limitations as yourself, whereas I have defined my limitations as the external world. Now I know I said "set rules for myself," but where I got those rules was from the observation of reality.

Whereas in your description, it sounds like you just depend on yourself (perhaps common sense or good judgement) to not exceed your limits. since we know people fool themselves all the time, this does not seem like a good plan.

I know. I am hoping to convince you to adjust your worldview with one tiny little addition: that every piece of knowledge you have (however you got it) must be verified against the external world.

But how do you know it doesn't hold true? I can tell you how I do; I have these rules of reason and evidence that I have to stick too. Any truths I uncover have to survive a double-blind test. Even more important, I can only generate truths by following a system that is designed to insure that I get real truths.

Your generation system specifically violates the verification system that we all agree on. How can you abandon the rules of reason, create a proposition, and then expect it to pass the rules of reason? And even if it does, wouldn't you be suspicous of it anyway? At least, until you worked out a way to get to your intuition useing only rational means.

Intuition is a great guide, but it's not a reliable one. Once it points the way, like a bright light in the distance, you still have to do the hard manual labor of carving a path through the wilderness to there. And if you, Tangie, can somehow magically fly above the trees to reach that glorius light, well, how does that help the rest of us? We still have to walk.

Because it is the only reason that I have to constrain your thoughts, and only so much as your thoughts affect me.

Given that you asserted in the beginning of this post that you don't use your theism for anything, the answer has to be "not much." But I am making the Sam Harris argument; I am pointing out that however harmless your theism is, it justifies and excuses other theisms, which are not harmless.

I'm not saying you have to give up your theism; I am saying you have to give up the notion that it is publicly true, deserves social respect, or can ever be used as a justification for any action.

Intuition is absolutely necessary for dealing with people, and it is often all you have to go on. No disagreements there.

But are you sure this method is equally applicable to dealing with universes? I can think of a lot of reasons why you could know something about a human being by intuition (non-verbal communication, social cues, biological similarity, etc.), but I don't think those factors apply to the universe at large.

And, of course, there are times when you necessarily second-guess your intuitions. Like when you are a juror on a criminal trial.

Sometimes you have to make a decision in a relatively short amount of time, or with relatively little data. Nobody faults you for making your best guess in those cases. But is that really applicable to studying the nature of the universe?

Yahzi

I think the reason for this is obvious.

At no point has Tangie declared that anyone who disagrees with her deserves eternal torment.

I'm pretty sure it's just that simple.


Edit: On second thought... it's not that simple. Tangie deserves more credit than that. Plenty of non-theists have utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest way.

0

It's not odd at all. I made the journey to this point after exploring atheistic Buddhism.
Labels don't really fit well with I believe. Most definitions I come across require a "Yes, that term applies, but I disagree with this...." So I just call myself Pagan.

As for the theism label, I say that because I choose to worship God, which a step beyond acknowledging All That Is/the Tao/etc. in my book.

My two cents,
Tangie