Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2013, 08:48 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 12:26 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Have you considered that your interest in adhering to some sort of religious belief about the world has something to do with your environment?

I understand that you denounce religion as you know it but speaking from an empirical, philosophic perspective, there is no such thing as religion that doesn't include magical thinking.

Pantheism and Transtheism are both theisms...which means they are both faiths based upon woo.

Ultimately, there is this philosophy and that philosophy and good philosophy. Good philosophy is based upon empirically verifiable, repeatable and demonstrable evidence of human action and other philosophies are based upon what makes the individual feel good.

In short, good philosophy is not based upon feelings (or woo). It is based upon real human action and the results thereof. Or in simpler terms, real philosophy follows the dictates of the scientific method.

So there's a challenge to your thought process.

Oh and, welcome to the club. It's wonderful to meet thinking young individuals like yourself. Bowing
I think the fact that I am still hanging on to religious thoughts is because of the influence of my parents. I was raised christian so I think I am almost afraid to let go of the whole idea of a "god" or a divine figure of some sort. I am debating between sticking with my ideas regarding pantheism or going full on naturalism. As naturalism goes, I believe that the Universe is everything and that the scientific method should and can be used to discover all that is contained in the aforementioned Universe. However, Pantheism relates the Universe to an Immanent "god" like figure, which is where I am currently stuck. Do I adopt the idea of a divine figure and call myself a Pantheist, or look at the Universe as a material object that can discovered through science and call myself a Naturalist? I guess I just need to think about how strongly I feel towards the idea of a divine figure. If anyone here is a Naturalist or a Pantheist, do feel free to share why you are one way or another.

The only way to avoid the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.
~Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(04-06-2013 04:33 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  Hi! I am fifteen and going to be a high-school freshmen next school year, I am glad to be here, hopefully I have finally found someplace to talk about my thoughts. I am really looking forward to belonging to this community.

There is one thing I want to accomplish with this post, and that is to explain my quite complex religious philosophy. I started as a forced Christian, my family forced it onto my during my childhood, which is very common as far as I can tell. I then became mature enough to start to question the thoughts that had been forced upon me, and I almost instantly came to the conclusion that theistic religions are completely ridiculous. From that point on I called myself an Atheist, however, as I started to research various religious philosophies I started to very much change my view on religion. After multitudes of research I have come to the conclusion that I am a Non-theistic religious naturalist. However, as I believe that philosophy is up to your own personal interpretation, I didn't think that Naturalism fit me perfectly; after some research, I discovered Transtheism and religious pluralism. I have since then adopted many different aspects from many different religious philosophies and combined them into something that I can call my own. I think adopting a monotheistic approach doesn't do anyone justice because many different religions have many different interesting approaches to life and I think that ignoring them is not a particularly good thing to do, which is why I support religious pluralism. I don't use a book, or a person, or a preacher, or my parents, or whomever to base my philosophy off of, but rather my own personal thoughts as the backbone to produce my philosophy off of. I believe that you are the most important part of your religious philosophy, not the teachings of any book, or person, or being.

In conclusion, I would define myself as a Non-theistic religious Naturalist who adopts ideas from Pantheism, Transtheism, and religious pluralism. As I said earlier, I believe that you are the most important part of your religious thoughts, and that is why I don't adopt the usual monotheistic approach of only calling yourself an Atheist or a Theist, but rather taking some ideas from a verity of things and creating something that you can call your own. I think that a lot of people could seriously alter their religious thoughts if they only look past what they blindly believe as true and start looking deeper into what other people believe and adopt some of those ideas into their own.
Hello and welcome!
Always nice to see another not-so-quite-atheist. I think humanity has been here long enough to get a little bit of idea of what the reality is like, although this is lost among many religious dogmas. I think you might be interested in this speech, it's basically getting down to what all major religions in the world should agree on.

Having a personal philosophy is like playing golf. Golf is a gentleman's game, every player is obliged to keep his own score. Anyone could cheat and say he scored points that he didn't, but cheating would make the game meaningless. I've always based my philosophy on personal experience, counting on my gentleman's sense that I'll always try to understand it better, neither to form beliefs, nor to succumb to the current scientific definition of what is reality. I think that approach pays off.

Science does not believe in gentlemen. We live in a corrupt world and anything that is not nailed down may be stolen, anything that is not proven by multiple double-blind studies published in peer-reviewed journals may be a lie, a delusion or an elaborate trick to earn money and fame. This I think distorts the worldview, it drives people to see only physical phenomena as real. Which is I think one of great fallacies of science, because the definition of physical is expanding all the time and we know there are great aspects of the universe not yet included in it. So we need the spirit of agnosticism and humility not to adopt any premature, overly complete philosophies, based on today's definitions of what is real. An experience is always real, the only thing that changes is our understanding of it.

I don't know how about you, but I made a big mistake, in your age. I chose a wrong high school. Electric engineering, basically. It didn't do me any good. But now in recent times I begin to find similarities between my understanding of electricity and between my philosophy and experience. Somehow it all becomes more natural and physical, really simple. I had years where I've been mostly wrong on lots of things, but now it seems like I become more and more right, like every change is not a correction, but a more precise specification.
So I can tell you, personal philosophy is possible and once you get the hang of it, it may become a life style.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 09:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Hello and welcome!
Always nice to see another not-so-quite-atheist. I think humanity has been here long enough to get a little bit of idea of what the reality is like, although this is lost among many religious dogmas. I think you might be interested in this speech, it's basically getting down to what all major religions in the world should agree on.

Having a personal philosophy is like playing golf. Golf is a gentleman's game, every player is obliged to keep his own score. Anyone could cheat and say he scored points that he didn't, but cheating would make the game meaningless. I've always based my philosophy on personal experience, counting on my gentleman's sense that I'll always try to understand it better, neither to form beliefs, nor to succumb to the current scientific definition of what is reality. I think that approach pays off.

Science does not believe in gentlemen. We live in a corrupt world and anything that is not nailed down may be stolen, anything that is not proven by multiple double-blind studies published in peer-reviewed journals may be a lie, a delusion or an elaborate trick to earn money and fame. This I think distorts the worldview, it drives people to see only physical phenomena as real. Which is I think one of great fallacies of science, because the definition of physical is expanding all the time and we know there are great aspects of the universe not yet included in it. So we need the spirit of agnosticism and humility not to adopt any premature, overly complete philosophies, based on today's definitions of what is real. An experience is always real, the only thing that changes is our understanding of it.

I don't know how about you, but I made a big mistake, in your age. I chose a wrong high school. Electric engineering, basically. It didn't do me any good. But now in recent times I begin to find similarities between my understanding of electricity and between my philosophy and experience. Somehow it all becomes more natural and physical, really simple. I had years where I've been mostly wrong on lots of things, but now it seems like I become more and more right, like every change is not a correction, but a more precise specification.
So I can tell you, personal philosophy is possible and once you get the hang of it, it may become a life style.
I appreciate your response, I share your thoughts about how personal philosophy can and does work. As for the physical world and science, I have come up with an interesting response to the fact that it is ever expanding. I believe that science itself can discover everything, however, science does not necessarily involve humans. We cannot discover everything as part of our own human existence, but this does not mean that science cannot discover everything. Just because we as humans do not discover something through science does not mean that it does not exist, someone else may have discovered it somewhere else. As for the idea of incomplete philosophies, I am a advocate of self-change, I believe that accepting incomplete philosophies can work, you just have to be willing to change your mind to incorporate new evidence. This is where my current philosophy is based, if someone gives me evidence that I have not included, I am ready to potential accept it into my currently established philosophy. Thank you again, these types of posts are making me seriously think about my philosophy and thoughts, and improve upon my ideas.

The only way to avoid the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.
~Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 04:51 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 09:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Hello and welcome!
Always nice to see another not-so-quite-atheist. I think humanity has been here long enough to get a little bit of idea of what the reality is like, although this is lost among many religious dogmas. I think you might be interested in this speech, it's basically getting down to what all major religions in the world should agree on.

Having a personal philosophy is like playing golf. Golf is a gentleman's game, every player is obliged to keep his own score. Anyone could cheat and say he scored points that he didn't, but cheating would make the game meaningless. I've always based my philosophy on personal experience, counting on my gentleman's sense that I'll always try to understand it better, neither to form beliefs, nor to succumb to the current scientific definition of what is reality. I think that approach pays off.

Science does not believe in gentlemen. We live in a corrupt world and anything that is not nailed down may be stolen, anything that is not proven by multiple double-blind studies published in peer-reviewed journals may be a lie, a delusion or an elaborate trick to earn money and fame. This I think distorts the worldview, it drives people to see only physical phenomena as real. Which is I think one of great fallacies of science, because the definition of physical is expanding all the time and we know there are great aspects of the universe not yet included in it. So we need the spirit of agnosticism and humility not to adopt any premature, overly complete philosophies, based on today's definitions of what is real. An experience is always real, the only thing that changes is our understanding of it.

I don't know how about you, but I made a big mistake, in your age. I chose a wrong high school. Electric engineering, basically. It didn't do me any good. But now in recent times I begin to find similarities between my understanding of electricity and between my philosophy and experience. Somehow it all becomes more natural and physical, really simple. I had years where I've been mostly wrong on lots of things, but now it seems like I become more and more right, like every change is not a correction, but a more precise specification.
So I can tell you, personal philosophy is possible and once you get the hang of it, it may become a life style.
I appreciate your response, I share your thoughts about how personal philosophy can and does work. As for the physical world and science, I have come up with an interesting response to the fact that it is ever expanding. I believe that science itself can discover everything, however, science does not necessarily involve humans. We cannot discover everything as part of our own human existence, but this does not mean that science cannot discover everything. Just because we as humans do not discover something through science does not mean that it does not exist, someone else may have discovered it somewhere else. As for the idea of incomplete philosophies, I am a advocate of self-change, I believe that accepting incomplete philosophies can work, you just have to be willing to change your mind to incorporate new evidence. This is where my current philosophy is based, if someone gives me evidence that I have not included, I am ready to potential accept it into my currently established philosophy. Thank you again, these types of posts are making me seriously think about my philosophy and thoughts, and improve upon my ideas.

Science discovers nothing. People discover things using science. Science is a method of discovery, a method to explore reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-06-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Science discovers nothing. People discover things using science. Science is a method of discovery, a method to explore reality.
That is exactly what I am saying in my above post. I am referring to science as a principle of discovery. The scientific method can be used to discoverer everything, but we as humans in our human existence may not be able to use it to discover everything. However, because because some stuff out their is not human, that stuff may be able to use the same scientific methods to discover some things that we cannot. Thus, science can discover everything, humans may just not be aware or able to discover everything themselves.

The only way to avoid the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.
~Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 06:32 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 06:22 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Science discovers nothing. People discover things using science. Science is a method of discovery, a method to explore reality.
That is exactly what I am saying in my above post. I am referring to science as a principle of discovery. The scientific method can be used to discoverer everything, but we as humans in our human existence may not be able to use it to discover everything. However, because because some stuff out their is not human, that stuff may be able to use the same scientific methods to discover some things that we cannot. Thus, science can discover everything, humans may just not be aware or able to discover everything themselves.

What out there is 'not human'? To what do you refer?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 07:11 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 06:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  What out there is 'not human'? To what do you refer?
Well, seeing as the size of our Universe, you cant possibly believe that their is only us in the entire thing. I believe that somewhere out their is multiple other sentient species that are just as capable of scientific discovery as us. However, unlike us, they may be capable of understanding and discovering something they we simply cannot.

The only way to avoid the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.
~Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 07:24 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 07:11 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 06:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  What out there is 'not human'? To what do you refer?
Well, seeing as the size of our Universe, you cant possibly believe that their is only us in the entire thing. I believe that somewhere out their is multiple other sentient species that are just as capable of scientific discovery as us. However, unlike us, they may be capable of understanding and discovering something they we simply cannot.

That is certainly possible. But I'm not willing to throw in the towel on human capability.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-06-2013, 06:18 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 07:11 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 06:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  What out there is 'not human'? To what do you refer?
Well, seeing as the size of our Universe, you cant possibly believe that their is only us in the entire thing. I believe that somewhere out their is multiple other sentient species that are just as capable of scientific discovery as us. However, unlike us, they may be capable of understanding and discovering something they we simply cannot.

Most likely we will eventually discover everything, just not in our life time. Humans are slow to accept new discoveries. If it contradicts something that has been passed down for generation after generation as generally accepted principle (such as gods or specific religions) it will take generations for humans to accept a newly discovered fact that contradicts old lore.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 08:13 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(06-06-2013 06:18 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 07:11 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  Well, seeing as the size of our Universe, you cant possibly believe that their is only us in the entire thing. I believe that somewhere out their is multiple other sentient species that are just as capable of scientific discovery as us. However, unlike us, they may be capable of understanding and discovering something they we simply cannot.

Most likely we will eventually discover everything, just not in our life time. Humans are slow to accept new discoveries. If it contradicts something that has been passed down for generation after generation as generally accepted principle (such as gods or specific religions) it will take generations for humans to accept a newly discovered fact that contradicts old lore.
I guess that is where my personal philosophy differs, I don't believe humans can discover everything. I believe that because our brains our biologically limited to being human, we will never be able to comprehend some things that we will come across through science. I don't believe humans will be able to discover everything because of their limited mental capacity for understanding.

The only way to avoid the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.
~Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: