The benefits of a religious community can be found in any organization. A specific creed or ritual does not work any better or have any more benefits than simply committing to a cause and caring for your fellow members. When I was in church, we prayed, then talked about the budget. The praying didn’t make the budget work any easier.
Ah, you did it, thank you. Ok, thanks to you we are now entering an investigation in to the value of worship.
First, note the way you are using the word “worship”. You appear to be assuming that religion based worship is the only kind of worship available. While it’s clear that, for you personally, religion based worship is a waste of time, that does not equal “worship is a waste of time”.
All the same emotions which are involved in religious worship can be explored in a totally secular context which makes no reference whatsoever to anything supernatural, unseen, imaginary, speculative etc.
So what’s happening here is that due to your blind rejection of religion, you are unable to mine valuable experiences often pursued in a religious context and adapt them to your own needs.
Please be clear I am not in any way suggesting you should become religious. That’s not what this is about, so just forget all that.
What I am suggesting is that you reach for the kind of open minded, even handed, reason based methodology which would allow you to examine religious worship without fear or bias and learn from it, so that you can then make good use of the parts of the worship experience that work for you.
You’re laying on your back under the stars, absorbing the enormity of what you’re observing, and tears of joy are streaming down your cheeks at the indescribable beauty of it all. Worship. And nothing whatsoever to do with any god or religion.
Many religious people know how to access these positive life affirming emotions. I’m betting you don’t. So you can learn from the worship experts. Without becoming them. Get the part that works for you, set the rest aside.
But none of that will be possible so long as your mind is closed to learning from those outside a small circle.
Gee Tanny, I’m already learning all these things about myself that I never knew. I am so grateful that I met you. None of that had ever occurred to me. I really don’t get out much though. As you know, because you know so much about me. Please, find some words in this post that we have not yet defined and tell me how I got them all wrong. I so look forward to that.
Gee Tanny, I'm already learning all these things about myself that I never knew. I am so grateful that I met you. None of that had ever occurred to me. I really don't get out much though. As you know, because you know so much about me. Please, find some words in this post that we have not yet defined and tell me how I got them all wrong. I so look forward to that.Do you not see how you clog all the threads with this kind of ego junk? That's how you wind up on ignore. Why not start a thread called "Goofing Around" and keep all the ego cleverness in there, instead of polluting the entire forum with it. This is supposed to be an intellectual type website, not Facebook, not your cellphone, not the water cooler at work, not a bar, not playing frisbee with your pals etc.
It’s my thread.
I used a perfectly normal definition of worship and made a statement. Instead of introducing nuance and suggesting another point of view, you decided that your definition was the one I needed to be enlightened on.
Here’s a story, mixed in to my sermon helper, about a church a spent 17 years at. It’s in the Romans part. Maybe you should spend a little time getting to know people instead of coming out with your guns blazing.]
Instead of introducing nuance and suggesting another point of view, you decided that your definition was the one I needed to be enlightened on.Introducing nuance and suggesting another point of view is exactly what my response to your OP did. I made the case that worship is essentially an emotional experience, and that those emotions are typically positive for the individual, and that those emotions need not have anything to do with religion. I converted "worship is a waste of time" in to "worship can be beneficial for anybody" which is a constructive contribution to the topic of worship. If someone chooses to reject these emotional experiences, ok, that's their call. And if they wish to express that, ok, that's their post to write. I don't object. So write that post if you wish to, but I'm also going to type whatever the hell I feel like typing, especially given that this is a forum with basically almost no standards. As for "guns blazing", I can agree with at least some of your complaint here. I don't claim to have the exact correct strategy for persuading members to stop clogging the threads with pointless quipping for example. Guns blazing seems to have convinced you to raise your game, which you showed no evidence of doing until I demanded that you do. But that doesn't equal guns blazing as being the best strategy in every instance, I can agree with that. The other reason I sometimes come out with guns blazing is that I have long experience chatting with atheist and theist ideologues, and I know from that experience that true believers of any stripe will typically use an endless array of dodge techniques for as long as they can get away with it. In these cases the guns blazing technique is my way of trying to get them to either cut out the dodging, or put me on ignore. Make a decision, and stop wasting everybody's time with the round and round the mulberry bush game. And truth be told, I get grouchy when I get bored, and that's nobody's problem but my own. I'm an incurable manic philosophy nerd guy, and when the conversation is traveling at 5mph I tend to start shouting obscenities from the back of the bus. Nobody is obligated to put up with this, and the handy ignore feature is always just a few clicks away.
The other reason I sometimes come out with guns blazing is that I have long experience chatting with atheist and theist ideologues, and I know from that experience that true believers of any stripe will typically use an endless array of dodge techniques for as long as they can get away with it. In these cases the guns blazing technique is my way of trying to get them to either cut out the dodging, or put me on ignore. Make a decision, and stop wasting everybody's time with the round and round the mulberry bush game.Yes. It's been obvious from the start that you are angry with some other people. There are obviously unresolved issues about this for you. You came here to express that anger to whomever you could quickly label as atheist. I am pretty bored with you, but I'll give you a slight benefit of the doubt given that you just admitted a couple failures. But you've got a long way to go. Making a quick assessment about the lack of moderation here is no excuse for acting in a way that you admit is wrong. So let's look at this "nuance" you claim you "suggested". Here's some things you said; "You appear to be assuming..." - actually it's you who made an assumption. If you wanted clarification, you would have stopped there, but you went on. "due to your blind rejection..." - you know nothing about how I made my decisions "you are unable to mine valuable..." - you know nothing about my experiences "reach for the kind of open minded..." - you insult my mind and claim your's is better "reason based methodology..." - you have not demonstrated the use of reason "I'm betting you don't..." - yes, we all know you make rash assumptions. I wish there was a way to construct that bet, you'd lose. As Frans de Waal said in the book from the other post, he can enjoy the sun without worshiping it. Worship is primarily defined in relation to dieties, so it's your task to take that out if you want. I see no reason for that, but fine, make your point. I'd rather use a different word instead. But that's not you, you'd rather make up your own definitions, then slam people for not thinking like you.
Yes. It's been obvious from the start that you are angry with some other people.I'm tactically angry with people who clog intellectual style forums with loads of crap. If I could politely convince them to either stop it or take it to Facebook, I would be happy to make the case politely.
There are obviously unresolved issues about this for you. You came here to express that anger to whomever you could quickly label as atheist.I can understand why you'd see it that way, but I assure you, I do the very same thing with Catholics and other theists. You should see me rip the religious homophobes to shreds, utterly merciless. I've actually tested this. I'll join a forum and be rowdy, and I'll be accepted so long as I don't rock the group consensus too much. And then I'll join the same forum and be overwhelmingly polite, but effectively challenge the group consensus. Banned every time, theist, atheist, makes no difference. Nobody wants their cherished dogmas messed with. Everybody needs to believe in something. Nobody tolerates heretics, nobody on any side.
I am pretty bored with you,You keep trying to change the subject to anything other than an examination of the qualifications of human reason to address god claims. That appears to be sacred territory for you that you can't bear having touched. It would go easier for you if you could man up and simply say that, in which case I would respect it and leave you in peace.
but I'll give you a slight benefit of the doubt given that you just admitted a couple failures. But you've got a long way to go. Making a quick assessment about the lack of moderation here is no excuse for acting in a way that you admit is wrong.Clogging intellectual forums with an endless series of clever quipy one liners is rude in my book, and merits a response in kind. There are literally a million forums and sites on the net where that kind of conversation is welcomed. Why do nerd twerps always have to do that on every single site on the net??
As Frans de Waal said in the book from the other post, he can enjoy the sun without worshiping it.Ah, but "enjoying" is rather a weak emotion, don't you think? That's what Frans de Waal is really saying, let's keep a lid on this emotion thing, let's keep it within safe comfortable bounds. Ok, to each their own in that regard, but it's kind of a chicken shit approach to one's relationship with nature, don't you think? What I mean by "worship" is taking that casual enjoyment, and ramping it up to the greatest possible degree, so that's one's relationship with reality becomes an overwhelmingly positive emotional experience. Like falling in love, like that. Go for it, open up, let loose, put all one's cards on the table. How does this in any way conflict with science or reason? Answer, it doesn't, in fact it's highly logical. My point is that many religious people are kind of the experts at mining such experiences. Their god technique is not going to work for many of us, but that doesn't mean that the emotional territory they explore can't be accessed by other methods. You see, I think a lot of the atheist rejection of religion is not so much a rejection of god theories as it is a running from emotion. It's the nerd condition, a need to keep emotion at a safe distance, to reduce everything to neat and tidy equation abstractions etc.
Worship is primarily defined in relation to dieties, so it's your task to take that out if you want.That is the most common use of the word, I agree. But when we dig just a bit below the surface, we see that religious worship is an emotional experience, and many people are benefiting from those positive emotions. Thus, a critical thinker, a person of reason, a logical person, will seek to separate that which works for us (positive emotions) from that which is an obstacle or otherwise distracting (god claims) etc. A sloppy lazy thinker will simply throw the baby out with the bath water, and then pout when their laziness is pointed out to them.
A sloppy lazy thinker will simply throw the baby out with the bath water, and then pout when their laziness is pointed out to them.There are a couple things in this post that almost qualify as actual discussion. But I'm not going to respond as long as you keep doing this.
Lausten, this is interesting (NOT). Your psychoneurosis condition as analyzed by Tanny.
Not only do I agree with you 100%. It is these rituals of worship that are keeping us in the Age of Deities that we need to get the hell out of. Religion is needed by humanity. But the deities are not. An example. In the Egyptian civilization which most of Christianity is built upon. The god RA held knowledge. And people prayed for knowledge. The pharaoh’s job was to keep the earth in balance by controlling greed. People did not pray to the pharaoh. The temples took care of items like someone in pain. They were not prayed to either. They were given money or gifts for words (the knowledge) of healing.
Point being. Are the people today seeking knowledge? Or is it that worship has evolved into such of an accepted egocentric format cloaked by religious rightness and the fact that people do not seek knowledge in worship anymore because they feel they already are knowledgeable. In other words, religion has always been evolving and today’s religion is faith based. And people believed that it has always been that way, which it has not.
What do people pray for? Money and health. People don’t ask for knowledge today. I would like to see the religion take care of marriage and death parts and the internet take care of the knowledge today. And on Sunday we could be with nature.
I realize Lausten only started this topic as a challenge. Tanny promised that if Lausten opened a topic on the value of worship, he would “rip into it” just as savagely as he rips into science, reason, and everything else. Actually, what he seems to be “ripping into” is Lausten personally. Wow, the more things change the more they stay the same.
But I would think that to the people who believe in the object of worship, the rituals that go along with it are valuable because they focus the group on the thought that they have that one object of worship in common. That was the reason I stopped going to church, because I no longer believed in that object of worship. However I don’t agree that “worship” should be defined as “anything that makes you cry”. :rolleyes:
Ah, you did it, thank you. Ok, thanks to you we are now entering an investigation in to the value of worship. First, note the way you are using the word "worship". You appear to be assuming that religion based worship is the only kind of worship available. While it's clear that, for you personally, religion based worship is a waste of time, that does not equal "worship is a waste of time". All the same emotions which are involved in religious worship can be explored in a totally secular context which makes no reference whatsoever to anything supernatural, unseen, imaginary, speculative etc. So what's happening here is that due to your blind rejection of religion, you are unable to mine valuable experiences often pursued in a religious context and adapt them to your own needs. Please be clear I am not in any way suggesting you should become religious. That's not what this is about, so just forget all that. What I am suggesting is that you reach for the kind of open minded, even handed, reason based methodology which would allow you to examine religious worship without fear or bias and learn from it, so that you can then make good use of the parts of the worship experience that work for you. You're laying on your back under the stars, absorbing the enormity of what you're observing, and tears of joy are streaming down your cheeks at the indescribable beauty of it all. Worship. And nothing whatsoever to do with any god or religion. Many religious people know how to access these positive life affirming emotions. I'm betting you don't. So you can learn from the worship experts. Without becoming them. Get the part that works for you, set the rest aside. But none of that will be possible so long as your mind is closed to learning from those outside a small circle.Tanny, you're clever. I'll give you that. You've learned to use the words of the non-religious against them. Words/phrases like open-minded and reason. And then you're smart enough to twist an argument in the just the right way to make it seem as though all you're doing is engaging in intellectual discussion. Very clever. In this case you've twisted the meaning of worship into something it's not. Worship in normal parlance is a religious word. Looking at stars and crying with joy is not worship by any standard interpretation. Anyway, I'm sure you'll worm you're way out of this one too. But bottom line, I think we're onto you. Spam sentence unblocker.
How did worship come to be? From what I have read it looks like worship started with RA in Egypt. When you are born, you have no knowledge. Where do you get that knowledge? From the one that has all the knowledge, RA. Your parents ask RA to send knowledge to your heart so you will be smart. It seems like if you ask for knowledge then you would be going to the temple to ask the priests to ask RA to send you knowledge a lot. And that is what the records show people did. A temple could record five million visits a month from the local people. Then about 1700 BC the Hyksos came from the East and took over the nation from the Middle Kingdom. This change the way people worshiped. They could talk to god by prayer. The priests were still at the temple but the number of visits per month when down. As the Greek theory that the brain did the thinking came into play it did not take away the person’s ability to talk to god directly. The people like the entertainment at the temples and to have a relationship with god. But RA lost the control of most of the knowledge to the brain. RA was on his way out as Egypt was able to evolve its religion. This was still taking place at the time of Jesus. That is why the old painting of Jesus had him standing on a Gnostic cloud. When enough knowledge gathers in one spot it forms a Gnostic cloud that omits light. The light was the knowledge coming from Jesus instead of RA to the people. The old bibles used those pictures a lot too. Another point is that worship could only be done in the daytime. Because sunlight was used to transfer knowledge from god. I have never seen a picture of a Gnostic cloud at night. Everything seems to evolve. For example, in worship today people say Amen at the end of prayer. And that is Amun-Ra, the Egyptian god RA. The long-forgotten Egyptian sun god of knowledge.
Point being. Tanny’s view of “worship" is right in line with today’s young religious thinking. As god has become a faith item. Worship has become a feeling you get and does not have to be about religion at all. Just like the word “amen", the meaning changes over time.
When enough knowledge gathers in one spot it forms a Gnostic cloud that omits light.I haven't read your posts in a while. Now I remember why.
Tanny, you're clever. I'll give you that. You've learned to use the words of the non-religious against them.If readers learn anything from me, it might be this. The only effective way to challenge any ideology or worldview is from the inside. For the record, I do the very same thing on Catholics sites, and it annoys them just as much as it annoys atheists. That's the price tag for effective challenging, social rejection. You should know that upfront before you learn this technique. If you get good at this, nobody is going to like you very much because everybody has some sacred cow they are clinging to, and nobody appreciates you screwing with it. Also, before we set out to destroy other people's sacred cows it would be a good idea to have at least some idea of what they might be replaced with. Being a social jerk can be redeemed to some degree if the point of killing the sacred cows has some constructive goal, and isn't just meanness for the sake of meanness.
Words/phrases like open-minded and reason. And then you're smart enough to twist an argument in the just the right way to make it seem as though all you're doing is engaging in intellectual discussion. Very clever.I agree I'm very clever :-) because only a really clever person would say that in public :-) however... The logic that pulls the rug out from under atheism is still there. It's not in any way dependent on me. Given my many personality flaws it's easy to defeat me as a person, but that won't help you a bit, because human reason is still not proven to be qualified to address the largest of questions. In fact, I'll be dead soon. That won't help you either, as nothing will change except me.
In this case you've twisted the meaning of worship into something it's not.That is, something it's not FOR YOU. In my personal life worshiping reality, without the inclusion of any supernatural entities, is a very real thing, which is why I write about it so enthusiastically. Religion was invented in attempt to craft a positive relationship with reality. We all agree that the God idea that works for many won't work for many others. But that is no reason to toss out the worship experience. Nor is it a reason to toss out the word "worship". Why should that word be ceded to theists?? The word has it's use because it takes us beyond a mere intellectual relationship with reality to something deeper in the realm of emotion.
Looking at stars and crying with joy is not worship by any standard interpretation.No offense, not trying to be rude, but I don't give a shit about what is standard. Standard is arguing the theist vs. atheist game for centuries to exactly no constructive result. Standard is thousands of nukes aimed down our own throats, a fact we're apparently bored by. And so on. Standard is the problem, not the solution. We won't achieve anything new if we insist everything must remain the same.
Anyway, I'm sure you'll worm you're way out of this one too. But bottom line, I think we're onto you.Ok, it's fine that you're on to me. Thank you for recognizing both my talent and resulting social liability. But that won't do you any good. The fatal flaw in atheism still remains, whether you're on to me or not.
Tanny, you're clever. I'll give you that. You've learned to use the words of the non-religious against them. Words/phrases like open-minded and reason. And then you're smart enough to twist an argument in the just the right way to make it seem as though all you're doing is engaging in intellectual discussion. Very clever. In this case you've twisted the meaning of worship into something it's not. Worship in normal parlance is a religious word. Looking at stars and crying with joy is not worship by any standard interpretation. Anyway, I'm sure you'll worm you're way out of this one too. But bottom line, I think we're onto you. Spam sentence unblocker.Quite true. I made the mistake of thinking that because Tanny used the word "reason" so much, he was open to reason. Obviously that's not the case. He's just repeating the same empty nonsense over and over again. In general I'm not going to waste my time responding to him anymore. But you know, words have meanings. Time and time again on this forum, we get into heated debates that go on and on and on for pages, and when we finally get down to the root of the matter, it turns out that we've simply been defining our terms in different ways. "Worship" in my dictionary means a "ritual". That's obviously the sense that Lausten was originally using. There's a secondary meaning of "submissive devotion". I've been thinking hard and I can't think of a single thing that the word worship applies to for me. I certainly don't worship the stars, or nature. I sometimes say that I "adore and worship" my wife, but we both recognize that I mean it in a metaphorical sense. I don't literally believe that she's an immortal goddess with powers over nature. It's okay to use a non-standard meaning for words, as long as you clearly state what you mean by it. Tanny hasn't even done that. Just "looking at the stars and crying" is far too vague.
My attempts to engage Tanny were definitely an exercise in the Socratic method. I couldn’t get him to stick to definitions even when he made them. I’m not sure he knows what a premise is or how to construct an argument. So, I kept trying to explain why the scientific method was not equipped to address the god question, however, one could make a decision and label themselves with respect to belief.
To him, “science” is a thing that spits out dogma. It’s just another opinion that one can choose or not, without reading anything or understanding the data. He would no doubt argue that characterization, but I hope he was serious about moving on.