The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is 'no religion' a new religion? > Comments

Is 'no religion' a new religion? : Comments

By Spencer Gear, published 19/7/2016

The ABS's 'no religion' category on the Census is parallel to labelling a fruit cake as a no-cake for public display and use.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. 29
  9. Page 30
  10. 31
  11. All
Dear Razor,

Can you kindly show me where have I ever claimed that one can understand or otherwise perceive God?

Can you kindly show me where have I ever claimed that God is unknowable?

Not being a Christian, the first time I've ever heard about "Sensus divinitatis" is tonight, from you.

«Anything that can be known even be direct sensory perception»

"direct sensory perception"? Just like a "carnivorous vegetarian", this is an impossible contradiction: if something is perceived VIA senses, then it is not direct!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 13 August 2016 8:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

<<<<<Can you kindly show me where have I ever claimed that one can understand or otherwise perceive God?>>>>

Are you serious? In your last post:

<<<<While the Absolute is knowable (though with great difficulty) in the sense that it can be directly experienced>>>>

Did you forget that?

<<<<Not being a Christian, the first time I've ever heard about "Sensus divinitatis" is tonight, from you.>>>

So? Look it up.

<<<<if something is perceived VIA senses, then it is not direct!>>>>

Please do tell me this new type of perception you've invented. Sounds like magic to me.

Are you perceiving my skepticism?

My direct perception is that you'll respond by missing the point entirely, and spouting forth more mystical sounding woo-woo to rationalize your beliefs.
Posted by RationalRazor, Saturday, 13 August 2016 10:16:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Razor,

«In your last post:

<<<<While the Absolute is knowable (though with great difficulty) in the sense that it can be directly experienced>>>>

Did you forget that?»

Perceivable - No.
Understood - No.
Knowable - Yes.

«So? Look it up.»

OK, I looked up in brief "sensus divinitatis".

To do Calvin justice, I would need to study his words in much more depth, as well as the different interpretations. At first glance however, and I could well be wrong about it, I read: "God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty". Now even if this is so, Calvin speaks of understanding rather than of direct experience and he speaks not of God, but of His divine majesty. Then, continues Calvin, "Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops" - so this again is indirect, here again human memory is used as a via. I reserve my judgement of Calvin's claim, but it seems that what he speaks of is other than direct-experience (Anubhava).

«Please do tell me this new type of perception you've invented.»

I was not speaking of perception. Perception is by definition indirect.

«Are you perceiving my skepticism?»

Via my eyes, via my brain, via my past experience, via my study of English, via my computer and yours, via the internet, via a hard-disk on the OLO server and several routers on the way - I suppose that your skepticism is there, but my knowledge of it is not completely reliable.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 13 August 2016 11:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 10 August 2016 8:45:53 PM

"Just as it is foolish to argue which perfume smells better, let the readers decide themselves what they like".

Not when you insist on equality of value between science and the pathological iniquity of religious faith. Yes, it may be foolish to argue the merits of different aromas. But presuming an equality of validity between perfumes and religious faith/no religious faith controversy is not a legitimate approach to take in this context. The aromas emanate from a single category of things, all closely related by sharing many characteristics....perfumes. The "no religion" = "new religion" entities share nothing by definition, for one is a unequivocal denial of the other's legitimacy and credibility.

Your approach here is characteristic of the teaching of creationism as an equal of science and letting the student decide which is acceptable. This striving is motivated by a desire to deceive. Your perfume analogy is illegitimate and you know it.

"If one is after the smell of the earth, then I recommend that they turn to evidence and science rather than to gods, ghosts and demons. If however, they become tired of the earth and prefer the smell of heaven then I humbly present them with the ancient wisdom of Vedanta........." where they encounter the gods, ghosts and demons you warn of.

While I will defend unto death your right to fill your mind with nonsense, I will equally defend my right to oppose your spreading that nonsense to others.

Meanwhile, I admonish you to treat the planet that is our mother and father, that gave rise to humankind and sustained us to maturity [such as it is] with the respect it deserves by capitalising its name. It is an entity with a name as a ship is, as a city is, as a country is. Names are capitalised as a courtesy.

<The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil. H. L. Mencken>
Posted by Pogi, Sunday, 14 August 2016 7:16:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

Your philosophy can be simply dismissed by Hitchens Razor - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

<<<While the Absolute is knowable....can be directly experienced>>>

No it can't.

I assert the following:

"I have direct experience there is no Absolute or God"

Prove me wrong. I hazard you'll start trying to present evidence, perceptions, understandings; you'll claim it's impossible for me to know but I'll respond that I have direct experience that it is possible for me to know, and so on.

Indeed whatever you say in your next post is false because I have direct experience that it's false.
Posted by RationalRazor, Sunday, 14 August 2016 9:00:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pogi,

I do not claim equality of values, only equal respect for people's choice of values: science is there to support human life, human life is there to support religion and religion is there to support our reunion with God. However, each to their own and let those who love the smell of chicken-manure work with chicken.

Religion often includes faith, but not necessarily. If faith is not for you then other religious techniques are available.

Back to the census, I already agreed that this question should not have been asked and should not be answered (and off-topic, the same can be said about the census as a whole). Though everyone has religion, knowingly or otherwise, people in general (including church-goers) cannot name their religion anyway. The question that government actually means to ask is, "To which church or similar organisation shall we send your tax-money? Which clergy shall we try to bribe?". The answer to this should be: "Nowhere and no-one, please: if I want to donate to a church then I can do so directly".

«treat the planet that is our mother and father, that gave rise to humankind and sustained us to maturity»

I am yet to see this maturity in you and in our other siblings, sister.
Till then, Mother Prithvi sighs and agonises under the weight of our irreligion.

---

Dear Razor,

When there is distance/difference between the observer and the observed, a via is required to bridge the gap so observation can occur. Direct experience on the other hand, can only occur when there is no difference. In other words, you can experience directly nothing but yourself (what allows you to experience God and others directly is that you and God are not different).

Now if you say that you have direct experience that "there is no Absolute or God", the above being an assertion (even if true), by your claim of directness, you are in fact confessing that you are an assertion.

Hello, Assertion!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 14 August 2016 5:34:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. 29
  9. Page 30
  10. 31
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy