Jesus Camp

Watermark said:
Does celibacy make you more likely to reach enlightenment?

Man, I should be Bhudda 2 by now.
Click to expand...
No. Rules are set for those who become Priests and Monks, not for the rest of us. There is a cycle to life. Buddha himself wasn't chaste, hard to be that way and have kids too.
 
Damocles said:
If they aren't meeting with others of the same disbelief regularly and taking classes on how to spread their disbelief better, becoming evangelical and extremely like churchgoers?

Then they would be atheist (small a)...

If they are attending meetings, becoming evangelical, carrying tracts (I've seen them), creating anti-religion websites to "disabuse" those who believe of "incorrect notions" then they become Atheist (big a)... that one is a religion. It takes exactly the same amount of faith to be absolutely sure that there is no God as there does to believe that there is one. When one wants to spread their Faith all over the rest of us they are definitely religious.
Click to expand...

I disagree. :)

It isn't split down the middle, because having a God isn't as likely as not having a god.
 
You guys should come over to a neo-con chatsite that I visit all the time. Damocles would get banned for being a liberal.
 
Damocles said:
No. Rules are set for those who become Priests and Monks, not for the rest of us. There is a cycle to life. Buddha himself wasn't chaste, hard to be that way and have kids too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant. Monks are obviously trying hardest to reach enlightenment. I'm just wondering the philosophical basis for the rule.

I just don't think that celibacy is a natural or healthy way to live a your life. I don't prejiduce those who choose it but it's certainly doesn't make sense, unless you're one of those "asexuals". It definitely doesn't make sense in a psychosexual way of thinking. If nature gave us an organ it meant for you to use it.
 
Watermark said:
I disagree. :)

It isn't split down the middle, because having a God isn't as likely as not having a god.
Click to expand...
There is exactly the same evidence. It takes exactly the same faith to be absolutely positive in such a way as to want to spread it to the rest of creation/the populace no matter which side you choose.

An atheist knows he could possibly be wrong but doesn't think so, the Atheist knows he has The Truth (capitals). It is those who believe that they have The Truth that are religious.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, that's what I meant. Monks are obviously trying hardest to reach enlightenment. I'm just wondering the philosophical basis for the rule.

I just don't think that celibacy is a natural or healthy way to live a your life. I don't prejiduce those who choose it but it's certainly doesn't make sense, unless you're one of those "asexuals". It definitely doesn't make sense in a psychosexual way of thinking. If nature gave us an organ it meant for you to use it.
Click to expand...
No monks are becoming teachers, they are not trying harder than others to become enlightened.

As for those reasons, I think it should come in a different thread than the Jesus Camp thread. We've taken it pretty much to an extreme. It is almost unrecognizable.
 
Damocles said:
There is exactly the same evidence. It takes exactly the same faith to be absolutely positive in such a way as to want to spread it to the rest of creation/the populace no matter which side you choose.

An atheist knows he could possibly be wrong but doesn't think so, the Atheist knows he has The Truth (capitals). It is those who believe that they have The Truth that are religious.
Click to expand...

You're acting like it's a half and half affair. It isn't. One side is more likely than the other, and the other side is going to require more faith to ignore the evidence against it.
 
Damocles said:
No monks are becoming teachers, they are not trying harder than others to become enlightened.

As for those reasons, I think it should come in a different thread than the Jesus Camp thread. We've taken it pretty much to an extreme. It is almost unrecognizable.
Click to expand...

This is how threads progress around here Damo.
 
Watermark said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Why is one more likely than the other? Because you feel it is? Tell me. How is one more "likely" than the other with the evidence we have. Each time you suggest one thing "shows" it your way, I'll take that thing and use it the other way. We can play the game to infinity.
 
Damocles said:
Why is one more likely than the other? Because you feel it is? Tell me. How is one more "likely" than the other with the evidence we have. Each time you suggest one thing "shows" it your way, I'll take that thing and use it the other way. We can play the game to infinity.
Click to expand...

There are very few probabilities that are literally split down the middle.

Think about even tossing a coin. If the wind is blowing, it's more likely to land on one side than the other.
 
Since there are so many religions, isn't atheism more likely than any one religion, Damo?

If it is split equally between every single religion, lack thereof, or indeterminate state out there, is the spaghetti monster as likely as Buddism?
 
Watermark said:
There are very few probabilities that are literally split down the middle.

Think about even tossing a coin. If the wind is blowing, it's more likely to land on one side than the other.
Click to expand...
However, here you are simply speaking of faith. Science doesn't prove anything at all, it wasn't created to. The pretense of mathematical equation on two different faiths is silly.

One is not more likely than the other because neither have any evidence to support them.

One cannot prove that God doesn't exist any more than one can prove that God does exist.

Which, in your opinion is "more likely"?
 
Damocles said:
However, here you are simply speaking of faith. Science doesn't prove anything at all, it wasn't created to. The pretense of mathematical equation on two different faiths is silly.

One is not more likely than the other because neither have any evidence to support them.

One cannot prove that God doesn't exist any more than one can prove that God does exist.

Which, in your opinion is "more likely"?
Click to expand...

As an explanation for the creation of the universe, having a God in there just adds one more complication. Occum's razor. Or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top