Not according to this source.f.Channell wrote:
One of the core beliefs of the Puritans.
Doing nice things for people meant zero.
The Pilgrims, Puritans, and Roger Williams Vindicated
- Bill
Remembering the Barefoot Doctors
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
O, won't you teach me, wise master? Having lived in this box, in a closet, in a basement all my life, I've never seen, heard, or experienced anything but this sad little life of mine, alone, here, in the dark.Bill Glasheen wrote: In a way you probably don't quite understand, Justin, I see you with somewhat sheltered thinking.
We watched that one last year. We try to watch a different cheesy Christmas movie every year.Why not watch It's A Wonderful Life again. That's my Christmas thought for you.
As for the debate at hand, nobody is asking you to give up your Judeochristian value system. All we're pointing out is that you're very quick to defend believers of souls, angels, etc. and very quick to attack believers in chi. You're the first to say "well I can take or leave God but I respect those who do believe" but you don't seem to want to extend the same respect to those who believe in chi.
Tell me, what do you think of Taoism? Chi is an important part of that religion. Is believing in Chi as part of one's Taoism worthy of scorn? If so, why does God get an exemption? What about people who believe in God, but no particular dogma, e.g. theistic UUs (they exist, as I'm sure you realize)? How is that different from believing in Chi without Taoism to "back it up" so to speak.
"Wow, Ian. I give you a review article from Duke University, and you brush it off as an "association" study. That and cite me a study on prayer that I could have told you would come out negative."
Wow, Bill. Most review articles I deal with review a variety of evidence starting with prevalence and incidence data, pathophysiology, and then moving to trials--rigorous trials. The review article you gave is a review of association and practice studies. They found what the conclusion states: in this country,* where people are far more religious than in much of the rest of the West, when they get sick they use their religious lens to reframe what's happening and provide a structure for coping. That tells us that people with a solid philosophical base in religion cope fine, after perhaps incurring some negative religious coping, but it doesn't tell us that other systems aren't just as good, that any measured benefits may be due to confounders, or that there is any value to adopting religion as opposed to already having one. It's not a lot to go on and it's like finding those who pursue TCM turn out healthier--is it the TCM, or is it that health oriented people pursue TCM? Which TCM? Now what? All this remains to be settled--and I believe I've outlined these issues already.
As for the prayer trial, I would have told you it woulda turned out negatively too. But I wouldn't have guessed knowing people were praying about you might be harmful or that such a finding has come along before. That's the best interventional evidence I'm aware of, and it is relevant. If I posted 20 links showing an association between acupuncture and improvement and you responded with a negative TRIAL, there'd be no question as to why. PS: see the commentary on the study, from Duke.
And now the crux of the matter. You DID list elements fundamental to most religions out there, BUT you excluded something which the large majority of religious people view as crucial to their religion, and you defined them so broadly you would include, say, the Benevolent Order of Atheist Particle Physicists, or me, among the religious--at the same time as hinting I'm stuck on being antireligious! By using an overbroad definition, you stiffle discussion. And you confused the issue by defining religion superbroadly and citing research on exactly the kind of religion *I* am discussing. We haven't even heard how you feel about the untested, unverifiable, can do without them claims of most "religions" as the term is commonly used. Instead, I'm told that my claim that believing in God, Gods or other supernatural powers** is generally fundamental to religion is a strawman. Well, the idea that striking is part of karate is a strawman by those criteria.
As for greek mythology, yeah, I read some. Celts not so much. Paganism in passing. Native Americans? Just as portrayed in popular culture. Hinduism and Buddhism a wee bit. What does that have to do with anything? My belief is that if they make any claims they can be tested like more familiar religions and aren't exempt from critical thought. Do I really need to sample every religion out there before I can value critical thought?*** Have YOU written some kind of comparative religion paper on the diverse native american cultures that enables you to classify me as an unlearned "son" because we don't agree? I'm not into mysticism, but you mystify me. My working theory at present is that you are trying to expand our worldviews and test our logic, much like some high school teachers I had used to espouse sketchy positions just to get discussion started. I just can't figure out why you can't do that with clearly defined terms & clear intentions, and without treating us like children
*no time to review the source articles for that paper, it would be akin to writing my own review paper. But generally these things pull mostly from the USA since we do most of the research.
**is christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, scientology, buddhism, paganism and others a "narrow box" now?
***If it makes you feel better, instead of majoring in Bio like most of the other premeds, I created my own majorless liberal arts program which included a bunch of courses in graduate level ethics, anthropology, and english. I'm not your average doctor robot.
Wow, Bill. Most review articles I deal with review a variety of evidence starting with prevalence and incidence data, pathophysiology, and then moving to trials--rigorous trials. The review article you gave is a review of association and practice studies. They found what the conclusion states: in this country,* where people are far more religious than in much of the rest of the West, when they get sick they use their religious lens to reframe what's happening and provide a structure for coping. That tells us that people with a solid philosophical base in religion cope fine, after perhaps incurring some negative religious coping, but it doesn't tell us that other systems aren't just as good, that any measured benefits may be due to confounders, or that there is any value to adopting religion as opposed to already having one. It's not a lot to go on and it's like finding those who pursue TCM turn out healthier--is it the TCM, or is it that health oriented people pursue TCM? Which TCM? Now what? All this remains to be settled--and I believe I've outlined these issues already.
As for the prayer trial, I would have told you it woulda turned out negatively too. But I wouldn't have guessed knowing people were praying about you might be harmful or that such a finding has come along before. That's the best interventional evidence I'm aware of, and it is relevant. If I posted 20 links showing an association between acupuncture and improvement and you responded with a negative TRIAL, there'd be no question as to why. PS: see the commentary on the study, from Duke.
And now the crux of the matter. You DID list elements fundamental to most religions out there, BUT you excluded something which the large majority of religious people view as crucial to their religion, and you defined them so broadly you would include, say, the Benevolent Order of Atheist Particle Physicists, or me, among the religious--at the same time as hinting I'm stuck on being antireligious! By using an overbroad definition, you stiffle discussion. And you confused the issue by defining religion superbroadly and citing research on exactly the kind of religion *I* am discussing. We haven't even heard how you feel about the untested, unverifiable, can do without them claims of most "religions" as the term is commonly used. Instead, I'm told that my claim that believing in God, Gods or other supernatural powers** is generally fundamental to religion is a strawman. Well, the idea that striking is part of karate is a strawman by those criteria.
As for greek mythology, yeah, I read some. Celts not so much. Paganism in passing. Native Americans? Just as portrayed in popular culture. Hinduism and Buddhism a wee bit. What does that have to do with anything? My belief is that if they make any claims they can be tested like more familiar religions and aren't exempt from critical thought. Do I really need to sample every religion out there before I can value critical thought?*** Have YOU written some kind of comparative religion paper on the diverse native american cultures that enables you to classify me as an unlearned "son" because we don't agree? I'm not into mysticism, but you mystify me. My working theory at present is that you are trying to expand our worldviews and test our logic, much like some high school teachers I had used to espouse sketchy positions just to get discussion started. I just can't figure out why you can't do that with clearly defined terms & clear intentions, and without treating us like children
*no time to review the source articles for that paper, it would be akin to writing my own review paper. But generally these things pull mostly from the USA since we do most of the research.
**is christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, scientology, buddhism, paganism and others a "narrow box" now?
***If it makes you feel better, instead of majoring in Bio like most of the other premeds, I created my own majorless liberal arts program which included a bunch of courses in graduate level ethics, anthropology, and english. I'm not your average doctor robot.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
What is wrong with defending a believer? That's very different than defending a belief, and a single one no less.Valkenar wrote:
you're very quick to defend believers of souls, angels, etc.
And why are you hung up on souls and angels? Be careful, Mr. Scrooge. Someone may come visiting you tonight in your sleep...
Liar liar, pants on fire.Valkenar wrote:
and very quick to attack believers in chi.
I attack the *BELIEF* in chi. Meanwhile, some of my best friends are chisters. Wow, does that statement make me racist?
If it floats your boat, then go for it.Valkenar wrote:
Tell me, what do you think of Taoism?
- Bill Glasheen
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
- Thomas Jefferson
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Are you dissing my UU religion?IJ wrote:
By using an overbroad definition, you stiffle discussion.
Not cool, Dr. Ian.Bill Glasheen wrote:
What Unitarian Universalists Believe
- Bill
The easter bunny is always welcome in my house.Bill Glasheen wrote: And why are you hung up on souls and angels? Be careful, Mr. Scrooge. Someone may come visiting you tonight in your sleep...
Ah-ha But when do you ever attack the belief in *god*? There's the supernatural, "no use" part of that belief system, but you don't stoop to calling Christians godsters...Bill Glasheen wrote: I attack the *BELIEF* in chi. Meanwhile, some of my best friends are chisters. Wow, does that statement make me racist?
But you didn't answer my questions. What about belief in Chi as part of Taosim and how it is or isn't different from belief in God as part of Christianity?Bill Glasheen wrote: If [Taoism] floats your boat, then go for it.
Last edited by Valkenar on Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:We watched that one last year. We try to watch a different cheesy Christmas movie every year.Bill Glasheen wrote:
Why not watch It's A Wonderful Life again. That's my Christmas thought for you.
- WikipediaIt's a Wonderful Life was nominated for five Oscars without winning any, but the film has since been recognized by the American Film Institute as one of the 100 best American films ever made, and placed number one on their list of the most inspirational American films of all time.
Next time you watch it, swim through the "cheese" long enough to see why the American Film Institute thought so highly of the film. Is it JUST a feel-good movie? I think not.
Centuries from now, people will be studying this film to understand something about American religious and political thought in that century.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
WHY????Valkenar wrote:
Ah-ha But when do you ever attack the belief in *god*?
Neither of us can prove he exists or he doesn't exist. Think you can, Justin? Go for it. And when you do, you'll have eliminated one of the very tenants of Christianity - that faith rather than touching and seeing are what makes beliefs special and different.
"Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
Now why would this be a so very important belief in Christianity, Justin? When you figure that out, you will have reached a different level of understanding of spiritualism.
As long as you don't make any claims as to what He can do in the here and now (like double your punching power), then we're cool.
I call them Christians. Is that blasphemous?Valkenar wrote:
you don't stoop to calling Christians godsters...
Yes I did answer your question.Valkenar wrote:
But you didn't answer my questions. What about belief in Chi as part of Taosim and how it is or isn't different from belief in God as part of Christianity?
- Bill
Someone is continuing to deliberately sidestep the issues. The point of Valkenar's post is the discrepancy--you know this. So you could address his point instead of focusing on your gotcha point that a belief is not a believer. Such an answer could be phrased like this:
"Well, actually, we should keep in mind I defend believers, not belief, and attack belief in chi, not chi believers, but to point: I do/do not believe there is a discrepancy and the reason is ___."
We're still getting nowhere. Oh and what's wrong with defending a believer? Depends on the BELIEF. In this country we're taught that "belief" and "faith" are intrinsic goods, and I just don't buy it. There's a quote from Jefferson about freedom? We still don't know what you think of Taosim; we already knew what you thought of religious freedom. And a link to the UU beliefs? I can barely respond, given that they're so diverse I still don't know what you believe or what we're talking about.
All I can do is define terms clearly--for nearly everyone, religion involves FAITH. One believes something in the absence of proof (say, that a God or Gods exist) and this distinguishes your belief from science or from secular humanism. My concern is about FAITH (as distinct from belief in the Golden Rule, which is not required for religion--see suicide bombings; as distinct from concern about Creation, which is not required for religion (see mahayana buddhism); as distinct from dealing with our mortality, which is something almost everyone does). If a UU person believes only in what can be shown and being good to each other and buys a copy of "A Brief History of Time," then that isn't FAITH. Call it a religion if you want, Bill, but don't create a phantom insult in my suggesting that what is essentially a secular humanist shouldn't be grouped in with Evangelical Christians so we can try to start having a sensible discussion. I didn't even say they couldn't be considered a religion! I just suggested we don't, ahem, deliberately define terms probably to confuse the issue and create opportunities for cheap shots against posters who CAN'T say anything that applies to all "religions" as defined by you to include everything.
Belief in chi and belief in deities both require faith and deserve a similar response, unless anyone can suggest otherwise (Bueller? Bueller?). That's all I'm saying, and perhaps we'll never know if you agree if you stay mum.
"Well, actually, we should keep in mind I defend believers, not belief, and attack belief in chi, not chi believers, but to point: I do/do not believe there is a discrepancy and the reason is ___."
We're still getting nowhere. Oh and what's wrong with defending a believer? Depends on the BELIEF. In this country we're taught that "belief" and "faith" are intrinsic goods, and I just don't buy it. There's a quote from Jefferson about freedom? We still don't know what you think of Taosim; we already knew what you thought of religious freedom. And a link to the UU beliefs? I can barely respond, given that they're so diverse I still don't know what you believe or what we're talking about.
All I can do is define terms clearly--for nearly everyone, religion involves FAITH. One believes something in the absence of proof (say, that a God or Gods exist) and this distinguishes your belief from science or from secular humanism. My concern is about FAITH (as distinct from belief in the Golden Rule, which is not required for religion--see suicide bombings; as distinct from concern about Creation, which is not required for religion (see mahayana buddhism); as distinct from dealing with our mortality, which is something almost everyone does). If a UU person believes only in what can be shown and being good to each other and buys a copy of "A Brief History of Time," then that isn't FAITH. Call it a religion if you want, Bill, but don't create a phantom insult in my suggesting that what is essentially a secular humanist shouldn't be grouped in with Evangelical Christians so we can try to start having a sensible discussion. I didn't even say they couldn't be considered a religion! I just suggested we don't, ahem, deliberately define terms probably to confuse the issue and create opportunities for cheap shots against posters who CAN'T say anything that applies to all "religions" as defined by you to include everything.
Belief in chi and belief in deities both require faith and deserve a similar response, unless anyone can suggest otherwise (Bueller? Bueller?). That's all I'm saying, and perhaps we'll never know if you agree if you stay mum.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Slow down and read what I posted, Ian.
Still have shopping to do. Boys are going to be angry if Santa doesn't come...
Sept. 21, 1897
- Bill
Still have shopping to do. Boys are going to be angry if Santa doesn't come...
- New York's Sun
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."
VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Sept. 21, 1897
- Bill
Bill, as you're well aware, no one can prove or disprove that there's a substance flowing in us called chi. SOME people make wacky assertions about using it to double their punching power, but others just think it's there. And they think there's something so cool and spiritual (zen, probably) about believing it when it can't be proven or disproven or tested. So why is it you so nastily proclaim your disdain: "I attack the *BELIEF* in chi"?
If I'm reading you right (hard when you won't say what you think), you believe there's value to the wonder of not knowing, and being ok with that, and letting it wash over you. Who'd argue? That's what drives curiosity and discovery. It's a pleasant feeling to lay in my hot tub and look up at the stars and embrace that I'm adrift on a speck of dust, in a vast universe, governed by strange and powerful forces, and that our abilities and knowledge are so finite and puny in comparison. To think about life, whether it's a secular or religious miracle, and how precious and rare it is. I'm all for awe and for embracing mystery... but one doesn't need to part with rationality for any of that. Nearly all thoughtful atheists acknowledge they can't completely prove that God doesn't exist; how could they, in the absence of His intervention that we can observe? That's not a justification for faith, or for organized religion.
Are you really just saying that there MIGHT be a God but he doesn't seem to intervene? Because every bit of that philosophy can be found within "The God Delusion," with a lot less fuss and deliberate obscurity.
If I'm reading you right (hard when you won't say what you think), you believe there's value to the wonder of not knowing, and being ok with that, and letting it wash over you. Who'd argue? That's what drives curiosity and discovery. It's a pleasant feeling to lay in my hot tub and look up at the stars and embrace that I'm adrift on a speck of dust, in a vast universe, governed by strange and powerful forces, and that our abilities and knowledge are so finite and puny in comparison. To think about life, whether it's a secular or religious miracle, and how precious and rare it is. I'm all for awe and for embracing mystery... but one doesn't need to part with rationality for any of that. Nearly all thoughtful atheists acknowledge they can't completely prove that God doesn't exist; how could they, in the absence of His intervention that we can observe? That's not a justification for faith, or for organized religion.
Are you really just saying that there MIGHT be a God but he doesn't seem to intervene? Because every bit of that philosophy can be found within "The God Delusion," with a lot less fuss and deliberate obscurity.
--Ian
Cute letter, Bill. Well, except for the part where you incessantly treat us as children who haven't read what you've written; that's just getting tiresome. I posted my comments about awe while you were posting about Santa. Check those out (read them carefully this time, my son) and enjoy your shopping. Meanwhile:
All the wonderful aspects of human culture, our joy, our fantasy, our fiction, our art, and our music, can still take place without FAITH. Imagination is quite another thing--you've been very worried about your UU beliefs being dissed, so don't forget that by suggesting faith is necessary for wonder you're trashing my beliefs. And while Santa is a fairly innocuous belief, suggesting (by failing to be clear or specific) that faith and religion inspire awe and wonder is all well and good until someone flies a plane into your office or writes your freedoms out of their laws. We can also still enjoy Santa without literally believing he's real--you know all this. And you're a smart guy so you probably also know your post suggests you think God is about as real as Santa, although "belief" itself is praiseworthy.
Well, now I believe in chi. I hope you don't stamp on my dreams and wonders! And as always it was interesting word-sparring with you. Now,
Hear me exclaim, before I log out of sight,
Happy secular and faith based Christmases and other seasonal holidays to all,
and to all a good night!
All the wonderful aspects of human culture, our joy, our fantasy, our fiction, our art, and our music, can still take place without FAITH. Imagination is quite another thing--you've been very worried about your UU beliefs being dissed, so don't forget that by suggesting faith is necessary for wonder you're trashing my beliefs. And while Santa is a fairly innocuous belief, suggesting (by failing to be clear or specific) that faith and religion inspire awe and wonder is all well and good until someone flies a plane into your office or writes your freedoms out of their laws. We can also still enjoy Santa without literally believing he's real--you know all this. And you're a smart guy so you probably also know your post suggests you think God is about as real as Santa, although "belief" itself is praiseworthy.
Well, now I believe in chi. I hope you don't stamp on my dreams and wonders! And as always it was interesting word-sparring with you. Now,
Hear me exclaim, before I log out of sight,
Happy secular and faith based Christmases and other seasonal holidays to all,
and to all a good night!
--Ian
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
Bill that book is from 1892. Please something from this Century!
Looking at Batism and what does it mean?
You go underwater (symbolically) you come back up
You are born again being able to breath.
A Holy Spirit then enters your body.
The difference between that Holy Spirit and Chi is???
Looking at Batism and what does it mean?
You go underwater (symbolically) you come back up
You are born again being able to breath.
A Holy Spirit then enters your body.
The difference between that Holy Spirit and Chi is???
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
-
f.Channell
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Valhalla
Another energy thing which may be interesting to discuss is Orgone energy.
This is based on animal magnetism or sexual energy.
http://www.orgone.org/articles/ax9kelley1a.htm
This is based on animal magnetism or sexual energy.
http://www.orgone.org/articles/ax9kelley1a.htm
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
www.hinghamkarate.com
WHY????Bill Glasheen wrote: Ah-ha But when do you ever attack the belief in *god*?
[/quote]
Because you attack belief in chi all the time. Why chi and not god? Note: This is not "why chi and not religion" this is: why chi (a faith piece of one religion) and not god (a faith piece of another religion)? Why attack belief in one and not the other? If people who pray claim that god is the force at work, you don't say anything negative. If people who throw a punch claim that chi is the force at work, you get all huffy and condescending. What's the difference? In both cases someone is making an appeal to a supernatural phenomenom that may or may not actually exist, and is impossible to prove either way.
No, it's entirely respectful... unlike calling people chisters for believing in chi. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.I call them Christians. Is that blasphemous?
You said Taoism is cool with you. And yet Taoism includes belief in chi... which you consistently mock. This doesn't add up.Yes I did answer your question.
Anyway, I'm off for the day, happy holidays, everyone.
