Just wondering about y'all's thoughts on spirituality...

[bluffcityguy]

As far as the question of God goes, I'm pretty much where the British philosopher Bertrand Russell was:

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

Another way of putting it: I've called myself "agnostic" with respect to the possibility of there being a god of some sort (the real problem here is that there are so many ways one can define that term, and few people are really specific about what they mean when they use the term), but I am very firmly atheistic about the Christian "God", Jewish "YHWH", or Muslim "Allah".* There is no personal, omniscient, omnipotent entity that meaningfully "loves" or "cares" for us in any way.

"Spirituality", in the broader sense? I'm confused what people mean by that term (especially the folks who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious"), so I just tend to ignore those issues as being meaningless.

That said, I majored in philosophy in college, and most of the work I did in the area was in the philosophy of religion, and I've always been interested in religion as an academic area of study. But as far as being something I should practice in some way... no, not for me. But if it makes you feel good, I'm cool with it, as long as you don't insist that I have to believe in it, or behave as if I did.

Cheers,

bcg

*Ditto the Hindu, Greco-Roman, Norse, or other pantheons, but I'm just taking that as understood--trying to list every personified god that some human has ever believed in would make this post the length of War and Peace. Or longer.

[Warden639]

Originally Posted by bluffcityguy

"Spirituality", in the broader sense? I'm confused what people mean by that term (especially the folks who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious"), so I just tend to ignore those issues as being meaningless.

Ha, same. It's pretty vague. I put it in the title because I figured it would aggravate a certain type of person less than the word "religion".

[tuckahoe]

You are right that Christianity has lost its' way, but that is because people want to make their own religion rather than what is described in the Bible.
Everything has to have a designer, not even an earthworm would be created by chance. Just take a look at a woman and tell me how she could ever be formed from some matter coming together in a big bang. Even sex is designed to be beautiful, not something dirty. It is true the Bible teaches it is to be practiced in marriage. For me marriage never happened, so I try to find a nice girl once in a while.

Don't be so down on Trump. He used to be a Democrat and if he called himself that now you would probably be liking what he is doing.

Try listening to some different sources. Michael Savage says liberalism is a mental disorder. Think about that! I am not saying that to demean you, or in a mean spirited way. 102.9 FM 9pm.

[Warden639]

Thanks for posting, tuck! I should reread the previous posts and see if I want to respond to anything, but for now I'll just write my thoughts on yours.

Politics:

I heard plenty of Fox News and conservative talk radio growing up. Encouraging people to step out of their ideological echo chambers is a worthy goal, but from my perspective that's what I'm doing now.

I can guarantee I would not have voted for Trump regardless of the party he ran for. Up until he took the nomination I was actually still probably going to vote Republican, but that was the last straw.

Policy positions aside, I don't like or relate to Trump as a person. If Bush or Obama invited me over for dinner I have no doubt we could find something mutually interesting to have a friendly conversation about.

Marriage:

I wasted way too much time typing a real long block of words here and still wasn't satisfied with it. Maybe another time.

Design:

I'm not fully content with any entirely scientific explanation I've heard for the universe's existence either, and it's the main reason why I said I'm agnostic rather than atheist.

Whether the human form is designed or not, probably everyone on this board can agree women are one of the most aesthetically pleasing things around!

[Hornysooner28]

i think really just try to be good person and you’ll be ok

[jethro1970]

Interesting subject... kind of a third rail, religion and politics in one thread.

I'm mostly in the libertarian camp, with some caveats.

I'm not on the full blown, no government, anarchist side. Human nature is human nature, and if there is a complete absence of government some thing/one will fill that void. And history teaches us that that thing/one can easily be something corrupt.

When I was deployed to a third world dirt-hole, an easy observation was made. Soldiers would try to hand out candy to kids in a 'equal' way. The result: the kid with the biggest stick would beat other kids, and take their candy.

I see government as a necessary evil. Power corrupts. Period. Government at any level is the organization of humans. The human condition is fallible. It's undeniable. Greed and self interest will always arise. If I write the tax code, and you own a billion dollar business, and you promise to put my kids through school and finance my retirement... I'll likely write tax code that suits you over your competitor.

One side will live or die by Obama/Hillary/fill-in-the-'liberal'-of-your choice.

Another side will live or die by Reagan/Bush/Trump/fill-in-the-'conservative'-of-your-choice.

My contention is that we should follow the founders' lead. The federal government should not have that much power. The actual president shouldn't really matter too much, because they shouldn't really have too much to say about our daily lives. The feds shouldn't be in charge of education, commerce, how many widgets you're allowed to make, or what you inhale in your own body, or who you can marry, or who is in your bedroom. The feds should make stamps and keep a military in place... build some roads, maybe. The states/counties/cities should decide how children are educated, take care of folks that need help, decide 'morale' laws like drugs. But since the turn of the 20th century, we've been going down the road of European Social Democracy... where people want to shrug off responsibility to a centralized government. Centralized government will give you the Crusades.

[Warden639]

Jethro, you sound exactly like my dad. But he wasn't in the military, so you're probably not him...

He also broke with the GOP at the last minute in 2016, went for a third-party candidate I hadn't heard of rather than either of the main ones. I'm curious where he's going to land next time.

[tuckahoe]

Originally Posted by jethro1970

Interesting subject... kind of a third rail, religion and politics in one thread.

I'm mostly in the libertarian camp, with some caveats.

I'm not on the full blown, no government, anarchist side. Human nature is human nature, and if there is a complete absence of government some thing/one will fill that void. And history teaches us that that thing/one can easily be something corrupt.

When I was deployed to a third world dirt-hole, an easy observation was made. Soldiers would try to hand out candy to kids in a 'equal' way. The result: the kid with the biggest stick would beat other kids, and take their candy.

I see government as a necessary evil. Power corrupts. Period. Government at any level is the organization of humans. The human condition is fallible. It's undeniable. Greed and self interest will always arise. If I write the tax code, and you own a billion dollar business, and you promise to put my kids through school and finance my retirement... I'll likely write tax code that suits you over your competitor.

One side will live or die by Obama/Hillary/fill-in-the-'liberal'-of-your choice.

Another side will live or die by Reagan/Bush/Trump/fill-in-the-'conservative'-of-your-choice.

My contention is that we should follow the founders' lead. The federal government should not have that much power. The actual president shouldn't really matter too much, because they shouldn't really have too much to say about our daily lives. The feds shouldn't be in charge of education, commerce, how many widgets you're allowed to make, or what you inhale in your own body, or who you can marry, or who is in your bedroom. The feds should make stamps and keep a military in place... build some roads, maybe. The states/counties/cities should decide how children are educated, take care of folks that need help, decide 'morale' laws like drugs. But since the turn of the 20th century, we've been going down the road of European Social Democracy... where people want to shrug off responsibility to a centralized government. Centralized government will give you the Crusades.

Excellent comments. Pretty much the way I see things. I am not particularly a Trump lover, it is just the Democrats are so far out there on socialism. Many Republicans act like Democrats. I really wish we had better choices.

[tuckahoe]

Originally Posted by Warden639

Thanks for posting, tuck! I should reread the previous posts and see if I want to respond to anything, but for now I'll just write my thoughts on yours.

Politics:

I heard plenty of Fox News and conservative talk radio growing up. Encouraging people to step out of their ideological echo chambers is a worthy goal, but from my perspective that's what I'm doing now.

I can guarantee I would not have voted for Trump regardless of the party he ran for. Up until he took the nomination I was actually still probably going to vote Republican, but that was the last straw.

Policy positions aside, I don't like or relate to Trump as a person. If Bush or Obama invited me over for dinner I have no doubt we could find something mutually interesting to have a friendly conversation about.

Marriage:

I wasted way too much time typing a real long block of words here and still wasn't satisfied with it. Maybe another time.

Design:

I'm not fully content with any entirely scientific explanation I've heard for the universe's existence either, and it's the main reason why I said I'm agnostic rather than atheist.

Whether the human form is designed or not, probably everyone on this board can agree women are one of the most aesthetically pleasing things around!

At least there is one thing we can agree on!
Hope you get your first date on here soon. Hope you will write a review of it.

[Warden639]

Originally Posted by tuckahoe

At least there is one thing we can agree on!
Hope you get your first date on here soon. Hope you will write a review of it.

I've been shy about trying to set up anything, lol. Also scheduling difficulties. Thinking about it for this weekend or Valentine's though.