|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jul 28, 2017 11:38:36 GMT
I do want to first point out that I didn't quote Hawkings because he is a religious man or that he believes in God - I just wanted to point out that his words would easily fit somebody who DOES believe this world is created with intelligent design. Which, his words do, yet I know he goes against that. Hawkings places his trust in science to explain everything - I think science ultimately explains the function of things in the world, not necessarily how they came into being.
I don't normally get into online discussions about this sort of thing, because I know it's a subject that can easily get heated or people often end up getting argumentative. It puts me off. But I never, ever try to be pushy with my opinion and I never disrespect anyone who disagrees with me - life is too short and in all honesty I don't believe any one person has all the answers.
Having said that, I do, and have done for years, believe there is a creator. I'm not religious (as in, I don't attend a church etc) but I do believe there is a higher power/source, and that this power created life as we know it today.
I think it is generally accepted by science that the universe had a beginning. A starting point in time (which is why the universe is seen now as "expanding." Therefore, at one point, there was nothing. There was nothing - and then suddenly something happened, and there was something. Logically, I don't think it is weird or silly for people to think a creator was the starting point. If there is a creator, such as a God/Higher Power/Intelligent Designer, then to bring this world into creation means he had to exist OUTSIDE of our physical world, and therefore is not bound by our limits of time and understanding. If there is a creator, he does not necessarily need a creator to create him. He was there, as something we may view as "eternal" because he is not physical, and is not, therefore, confined by our universal law and time.
Going back to my acceptance that the universe had a starting point, a beginning etc:
1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Nothing really happens in isolation, at random.
2. The universe has a beginning and has not existed forever (I don't think science argues that? I believe even Hawkings states this much?)
3. Therefore the universe must have a cause.
To me, because of the complexity of life, I believe that cause to be an intelligent designer. Many might call him a God, or Jesus, or Muhammed or whatever, but I am simply going to say it is a Higher Power of some type, because I am not really wanting to get into a specific religious debate.
I don't believe the universe can be self-created. Nothing in any other part of our human understanding has ever pointed to something creating itself. Not without something, say, an event or matter preceding it.
The Law of Thermodynamics itself displays the fact that energy can never be created or destroyed in isolation.
There are some people who have claimed that quantum mechanics is a trump card - that quantum mechanics proves something can come out of nothing. Quantum fluctuation means that there had to be SOMETHING to fluctuate in the first place. I'm still reading up on that aspect myself, so I can't delve deeply into it on here with any confidence, I admit that, but I am reading into it and hope to learn more about it.
I have read other atheists threads before, on why they don't believe there is a creator, but it never truly sits right with me. No theory I have read explains why anything should exist in the first place without first having a cause, and how the complexity of the world and the fine-tuning of all physical elements aligned so perfectly that we have life as we know it today - in all it's vastness. From wasps, to lions, to humans, to the leaf on a tree or the tooth of a shark. Life, to me, signifies much more than something that somehow appeared and grew from nothing, accidentally or randomly.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 28, 2017 12:02:34 GMT
I think it is generally accepted by science that the universe had a beginning. A starting point in time (which is why the universe is seen now as "expanding." Therefore, at one point, there was nothing. There was nothing - and then suddenly something happened, and there was something. Logically, I don't think it is weird or silly for people to think a creator was the starting point. If there is a creator, such as a God/Higher Power/Intelligent Designer, then to bring this world into creation means he had to exist OUTSIDE of our physical world, and therefore is not bound by our limits of time and understanding. If there is a creator, he does not necessarily need a creator to create him. He was there, as something we may view as "eternal" because he is not physical, and is not, therefore, confined by our universal law and time. Going back to my acceptance that the universe had a starting point, a beginning etc: 1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Nothing really happens in isolation, at random. 2. The universe has a beginning and has not existed forever (I don't think science argues that? I believe even Hawkings states this much?) 3. Therefore the universe must have a cause. To me, because of the complexity of life, I believe that cause to be an intelligent designer. Many might call him a God, or Jesus, or Muhammed or whatever, but I am simply going to say it is a Higher Power of some type, because I am not really wanting to get into a specific religious debate. I don't believe the universe can be self-created. Nothing in any other part of our human understanding has ever pointed to something creating itself. Not without something, say, an event or matter preceding it. The Law of Thermodynamics itself displays the fact that energy can never be created or destroyed in isolation. There are some people who have claimed that quantum mechanics is a trump card - that quantum mechanics proves something can come out of nothing. Quantum fluctuation means that there had to be SOMETHING to fluctuate in the first place. I'm still reading up on that aspect myself, so I can't delve deeply into it on here with any confidence, I admit that, but I am reading into it and hope to learn more about it. I have read other atheists threads before, on why they don't believe there is a creator, but it never truly sits right with me. No theory I have read explains why anything should exist in the first place without first having a cause, and how the complexity of the world and the fine-tuning of all physical elements aligned so perfectly that we have life as we know it today - in all it's vastness. From wasps, to lions, to humans, to the leaf on a tree or the tooth of a shark. Life, to me, signifies much more than something that somehow appeared and grew from nothing, accidentally or randomly. Just because the Universe is expanding it does not mean the singularity it expanded from was THE beginning of everything and there was "nothing" before that or outside of that. In science today there is more and more acceptance and evidence for the multiverse model where our Universe is just one of infinite number of universes. The problem with the insertion of a creator is that it doesn't solve your problem - in fact it makes it even deeper. Someone who is able to create a complex world like ours must be even more complex. If you think such complexity cannot come or evolve from "nothing" then that is true for a creator as well. He must have a creator who is even more complex, then that must have a creator who is even more complex etc. So instead of solving the problem it only makes it deeper. You try to circumvent it by placing that creator outside of our Universe. But the same way you can say the Big Bang is simply not the origin of everything and it is not "nothing". In fact, like I said, today there is more and more leaning towards the multiverse modell. And if a complex intelligent desinger could exist outside of our Universe forever then so can anythig else that is not "nothing" yet it is not an intelligent designer and not a God. Obviously there are a lot of questionmarks still about the origin of the Universe, the Big Bang, whether the Multiverse modell is right or wrong etc. - but again, just because we don't know something (yet) it doesn't mean the answer is "God did it". In history people almost always jumped to the "God did it" conclusion every time they had difficulty to explain something at that level of knowledge, but as science progressed the answer never proved to be God in reality. There have always been perfectly natural scientific explanations that always ended up more satisfactory explanations, and more supported by evidence and facts than the God explanation. Re. the fine-tuning argument: Linda already explained it. 99.9% of the Universe seems hostile to any kind of life, let alone human life. So it is hard to call the Universe be fine-tuned for humans or for life. But how come the Earth is "fine-tuned" for life? Well, it isn't. For most of Earth's history there wasn't any kind of life on it and it was hostile to life just as most other planets. Now we have a time frame in a tiny fraction of a vast Universe that happens to be friendly to life. It isn't so much a miracle or a sign of God than rather just the law of great numbers. The Universe is HUGE, there are billions and billions of stars with billions and billions of planets. 99.9% of those are completely hostile to life. But it is only natural with that huge number of worlds that some would end up to be right for life. And of course we are bound to be in such a place - with our self-centered illusion that this world was somehow created for us. Same can be said about the physical elements of the Universe. In a Multiverse of infinate number of Universes it is bound to happen that some would be with the physical charateristics of our Universe - and of course any kind of life, such as ours, would be inside such a Universe - again, with the illusion that it was created for us.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Jul 28, 2017 20:30:38 GMT
I do want to first point out that I didn't quote Hawkings because he is a religious man or that he believes in God - I just wanted to point out that his words would easily fit somebody who DOES believe this world is created with intelligent design. Which, his words do, yet I know he goes against that. Hawkings places his trust in science to explain everything - I think science ultimately explains the function of things in the world, not necessarily how they came into being.It can do both. Science explains the evolution of one species into another. It explains how continents and mountains and volcanoes were created. It explains how our Universe and our planet came about. All of these things were once ascribed to a divine Creator. It is true that some things are still beyond our current scientific understanding - the origin of life is a prime example - but I see no rational basis to assume that science cannot possibly answer these questions. And if you're latching onto these gaps in our knowledge as proof of a God, then to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, God simply becomes an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. Well, I hope you'll keep posting here as I think it's good to have different perspectives in a discussion, otherwise it gets boring pretty fast I think this word, logically, illustrates the fundamental difference between our views. I agree with you completely that it is not logical that 'something' came from 'nothing'. I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that around 13.7 billion years ago, our entire cosmos fit into a singularity that was smaller than a subatomic particle. I have a hard time even imagining the scope of 13.7 billion years. I have no concept of what dark matter or black holes or empty space looks like. Quantum theory seems like complete magic to me and yet its predictions are said to be as accurate as measuring the distance between LA and New York to within the width of a human hair. What I'm trying to say is that logic is not a factor for me in understanding the universe and our place in it. I accept that our human sense of logic is unreliable and narrow. A lot of things are simply beyond our understanding, especially when it concerns the very great (universe) and the very small (atoms). I leave it up to the brightest minds among us to expand our knowledge a little further, and if they agree on a theory and have the evidence to back it up, I won't presume to know better than them. Even though I'm not able to verify these theories for myself, their successful implementation in practice (e.g. in medicine and technology) is enough proof for me that they are accurate. So in essence, I believe the universe is not bound by human logic and it doesn't bother me if the laws of nature seem to contradict our own intuition. I see no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that the universe was designed specifically with us in mind, but if that's where you're coming from then I understand the need for a quintessentially human framework of a creator, a starting point, a logical progression and a human-centric reasoning behind all of it. I think I made my point on that Edit: one thing I forgot to address, although I touched on it briefly before. You mentioned that nothing has ever pointed to something creating itself - except the Creator. Everything has a starting point or beginning - except the Creator. The world is too complex and finely tuned to appear from nothing, accidentally or randomly - but the Creator of this complex world was somehow always there and did not require a cause or creator himself. I know you said that the Creator exists outside the physical world and that's that but that seems like an awfully convenient argument to circumvent any of the questions you raised about a natural explanation for the universe. Like I said earlier, if you're willing to ignore these questions for a Creator, why not just skip that step and go straight to the natural explanation?
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Aug 2, 2017 19:01:41 GMT
I've read over your replies, and appreciate your responses. I was in two minds about responding - not because anything negative is happening here (I believe both sides are being respectful?) but because more often than not, people end up stating their opinions on a loop and end up going nowhere. Having said that, it's also an interesting discussion. So...lol...
I will go over a couple of points raised.
We mentioned the issue of the "fine tuning" of our world, and I still feel this is the case. There is an author, physician and mathematician, called Robin Collins. He became a believer in a creator AFTER his university education. This is what he says on the idea of fine tuning, which I tend to agree with:
He then goes on to talk about thirty separate physical and cosmological parameters that require unbelievable precision to allow a life sustaining planet.
You mention the many universes hypothesis, but this to me strengthens the idea of a creator. That out of all those planets, all that swirling matter of nothingness and random chaos suddenly appears, out of nothing, this world of such perfect precision that we now have the abundance of life, animals and nature that surrounds us today.
In terms of their being an intelligent creator, let's look at the Big Bang, for example. If the world had a point of beginning/animation, then something beyond the universe had to start it. I use the example of the blue ball in the forest again. If you saw a little, beautiful ball randomly floating in the air and asked me how it got there, would you accept my answer if I said, "Out of nowhere. It just kinda appeared and happened." You would likely not be easily accepting of such an answer....so if you would not accept an answer like that about a small ball, how can you accept the same type of answer for the existence of our complex and beautiful world?
Back to the point that has been risen to me a few times on here. About "God needing to have a creator" if everything has a creator etc. I genuinely believe that, if there is a God, he exists outside of our physical world and time frame. Yes, I know this sits uncomfortably with atheists, however it is what appears to make sense to me. The philosophical argument is that "Everything that BEGINS has a cause." Not everything that EXISTS! Everything that begins has a starting point. Most scientists agree that our universe started at a certain, specific time. If so, I think it fair to say it has a cause. If God exists at all, he exists outside of our physical laws of nature and time - he would be eternal. Everything that begins has a cause - something or someone that exists as eternal would not have a "cause" or creator. Nor would he require one.
Some atheists say that the universe can potentially be eternal and not caused or created by anything. If the universe can be viewed that way, then why not a God, or intelligent being? You say the universe does not need or require a cause or creator, I say snap! An intelligent designer of some kind may not need one either.
Atheists would likely say that to believe in a creator requires blind and empty faith. But to be an atheist, you'd have to believe that:
- Nothing can produce everything around us - Non-life can produce life and then begin evolving - The random (and apparently biological, meaningless chaos) beginning of our universe somehow began the perfection of fine tuning
The above (to me) also asks me to have faith... just a very, very different kind.
Sorry for the long post. I didn't intend to go into it so much.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 3, 2017 20:41:06 GMT
References to believing scientists as a way of "proving" a creator is always a shaky ground (as all Appeal to Authority arguments are) because the number of non-believing scientists is growing much faster than these rare cases of "atheist scientist turned believer". Of course, this latter is what believers will pick up but it is not representative at all. And there is nothing really in that quote by him that wasn't addressed in previous posts here.
It seems to me that you are trying to give a special exception to an Intelligent Designer from anything and everything that you otherwise find unbelievable and problematic. To me that's not too convincing. It seems rather biased for something that you would like to believe.
I see that now you distinguish between things that BEGIN and things that just EXIST. But again, if an Intelligent Designer can just EXIST forever, outside of our physical realm and without a cause then so can other things - be it energy, matter, quantum fluctuations, anything. We do not know what was before the Universe, so to say that the Big Bang is the beginning of everything is just not right IMO. The Big Bang is just the beginning of our Universe, it doesn't mean it is the beginning of everything and there was nothing before it or there is nothing outside of it (eg. Multiverse theory). That doesn't mean though that the thing that was before it or that is outside of it is an Intelligent Designer. We don't know what it is but so far the right answer has never proved to be a God or Intelligent Designer whenever mankind got an answer to a previous problem or gap in its knowledge.
You also keep referring to supposed "perfection of fine-tuning" as if it is a fact and it is not. It is a human illusion (or delusion) that the Universe is fine-tuned for human life because humans are just that self-centered. But it's been addressed before.
Atheists do not have faith in the things that you have listed. You have it reversed. Atheism isn't about faith in anything. It is about not having faith in God as long as his/her/its existence is not proven. Atheists do not say that "nothing can produce everything around us" is definitely true. What is "nothing" at all? Can you even claim there is such a thing as "nothing"? Atheists simply claim that there are still things on that the jury is out and we can have theories about it but as long as it is not sufficiently proven they are just that and you do not have to accept or believe any of these theories. You can be content with "we don't know yet" as an atheist. There is no urgency to jump to conclusions like on the part of those people who jump to the conclsuion of an Intelligent Designer/God when we don't know something.
The theory of evolution is definitely proven by now. So there you have it, a working and proven theory of how less complex things can become more complex naturally without any intelligent intervention.
How life or how the universe, let alone the multiverse started (or whether it started at all) is something that we have theories about but nothing is definitely proven yet. That doesn't mean the answer is God. Also whoever makes a claim, especially as exceptional of a claim as a claim that there is an Intelligent Designer, the burden of proof is on them. Otherwise there are several different theories about how everything "began" or whether some things are "forever" (what is the definition of "nothing" at all? is there even such a thing?) or how life started and whoever has a theory needs to prove it as well. Some theories are as well as proven (eg. evolution), some are still being tested. We may not have a definite answer to everything yet, but that doesn't mean the answer is God. On many occasions in history, people thought like you that something was so "perfect" that it could only be explained with the existence of a God, but then it always ended up having a natural explanation. Of course, that doesn't mean that will always be so in the future as well, but again, the burden of proof is on those who claim an Intelligent Designer. And in my view, throughout history scientists have been making a better progress in proving their theories than theists. In fact, the room for a God or Intelligent Desiner is ever shrinking.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 7, 2017 16:40:01 GMT
A Picture of Malaysian Atheists Has Led to a Government Crackdown on Ex-MuslimsAugust 6, 2017 by Hemant Mehta 162 Comments Atheist Republic, an online Facebook group with more than 1.7 million followers around the world, frequently holds meetups for members in larger cities. It’s not just a chance to interact in person, though the importance of that shouldn’t be understated. They can do a lot more when they get to organize in person. The Metro Manila “Consulate,” for example, even raised money for disaster victims in the Philippines. Last week, the Consulate of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia got together for dinner and drinks and they took a picture of the group to celebrate the occasion. Taking that picture may have been a mistake. Malaysia ostensibly has freedom of religion… but the rules don’t apply to Muslims who want to leave the faith. There are rules to prohibit — or at least make it very difficult to go through — such a (de)conversation. So back to that picture. The Malaysian government caught wind of the photo and began wondering if there were any secret Muslims in there… because they had to be punished. The government will investigate if there are Muslims who have joined the Kuala Lumpur Atheist Club, as made viral on the social media recently, said Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki. … According to Asyraf Wajdi, jurisdiction on Islamic faith is under the Syariah Criminal Enactment of each state, while at the Federal Territories level, it is under the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi). “If it is proven that there are Muslims involved in atheist activities that could affect their faith, the state Islamic religious departments or Jawi could take action. I have asked for Jawi to look into this grave allegation,” he told reporters after officiating the Indera Mahkota Division Umno Youth Delegates’ Conference here today. All this because a handful of atheists wanted to hang out together. It doesn’t stop there either. The news coverage led to a lot of Malaysians calling for the imprisonment or death of apostates over social media. Ali A. Rizvi posted a number of them: Rizvi added: This is the reality for those who leave Islam. We speak a lot here in the West about anti-Muslim bigotry, which is real and abhorrent. But it pales in comparison to Islamic bigotry, which gives license to its followers to murder those who dare to think for themselves, outside of Islam. Ex-Muslims, who still have Muslim names and share ethnicities and nationalities with other Muslims, are targeted by both. Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic, noted that the calls for beheading of members (including himself) was unique to the groups in certain countries… and they all had something in common. They are now asking for me to be beheaded for simply starting a group where Malaysian atheists can meet each other. Atheist Republic's Malaysian consulate is now being targeted by their government. Our Indonesian consulate is also under attack. Tell me why is our Manila consulate not under such attacks? It can't be the economy since Indonesia and Malaysia have a higher GDP per capita than the Philippines. It can't be western colonialism. They are all in the same area. Can it possibly be that Indonesia and Malaysia are Islamic and the Philippines is Christian? Weren't Indonesia and Malaysia supposed to be examples of "moderate" Islamic countries?
(Someone’s sending this link to Reza Aslan and Ben Affleck, right? Just checking.) Because of the unwanted attention to the Malaysian group, other Consulates in majority-Muslim nations are also being targeted, like the one in Jakarta, Indonesia. That group took precautionary action on Facebook, purging its (closed group) membership of anyone who was still in the queue to be approved along with anyone who hadn’t commented in a while. Because who knows if they’re leaking information to the outside. The Malaysian Consulate released a long statement tonight explaining the “hidden crisis of ex-Muslims” and the bizarre version of religious freedom they have in the country: All of this just shows you how difficult it is to be an open atheist in a supposedly “free” nation that’s still dominated by Islamic beliefs, even if it’s not a Muslim theocracy. www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/08/06/a-picture-of-malaysian-atheists-has-led-to-a-government-crackdown-on-ex-muslims/
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 7, 2017 18:35:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moonstruck87 on Aug 8, 2017 11:16:27 GMT
It'd be irresponsible on my part assuring there's no god if I don't have the certainty,just to this day there is factual evidence that supports the existence of deities. We simply don't believe in a higher power, it's not another religion and doesn't have anything to do with faith. Faith is blindly believing in something without evidence. Doubts are an integral part of faith. Believing in something includes doubts. Faith minus doubts would be knowledge. I hope I could make myself clear. It is not so easy lol
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 26, 2017 7:40:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Aug 26, 2017 9:19:03 GMT
A Picture of Malaysian Atheists Has Led to a Government Crackdown on Ex-MuslimsAugust 6, 2017 by Hemant Mehta 162 Comments Atheist Republic, an online Facebook group with more than 1.7 million followers around the world, frequently holds meetups for members in larger cities. It’s not just a chance to interact in person, though the importance of that shouldn’t be understated. They can do a lot more when they get to organize in person. The Metro Manila “Consulate,” for example, even raised money for disaster victims in the Philippines. Last week, the Consulate of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia got together for dinner and drinks and they took a picture of the group to celebrate the occasion. Taking that picture may have been a mistake. Malaysia ostensibly has freedom of religion… but the rules don’t apply to Muslims who want to leave the faith. There are rules to prohibit — or at least make it very difficult to go through — such a (de)conversation. So back to that picture. The Malaysian government caught wind of the photo and began wondering if there were any secret Muslims in there… because they had to be punished. The government will investigate if there are Muslims who have joined the Kuala Lumpur Atheist Club, as made viral on the social media recently, said Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki. … According to Asyraf Wajdi, jurisdiction on Islamic faith is under the Syariah Criminal Enactment of each state, while at the Federal Territories level, it is under the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi). “If it is proven that there are Muslims involved in atheist activities that could affect their faith, the state Islamic religious departments or Jawi could take action. I have asked for Jawi to look into this grave allegation,” he told reporters after officiating the Indera Mahkota Division Umno Youth Delegates’ Conference here today. All this because a handful of atheists wanted to hang out together. It doesn’t stop there either. The news coverage led to a lot of Malaysians calling for the imprisonment or death of apostates over social media. Ali A. Rizvi posted a number of them: Rizvi added: This is the reality for those who leave Islam. We speak a lot here in the West about anti-Muslim bigotry, which is real and abhorrent. But it pales in comparison to Islamic bigotry, which gives license to its followers to murder those who dare to think for themselves, outside of Islam. Ex-Muslims, who still have Muslim names and share ethnicities and nationalities with other Muslims, are targeted by both. Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic, noted that the calls for beheading of members (including himself) was unique to the groups in certain countries… and they all had something in common. They are now asking for me to be beheaded for simply starting a group where Malaysian atheists can meet each other. Atheist Republic's Malaysian consulate is now being targeted by their government. Our Indonesian consulate is also under attack. Tell me why is our Manila consulate not under such attacks? It can't be the economy since Indonesia and Malaysia have a higher GDP per capita than the Philippines. It can't be western colonialism. They are all in the same area. Can it possibly be that Indonesia and Malaysia are Islamic and the Philippines is Christian? Weren't Indonesia and Malaysia supposed to be examples of "moderate" Islamic countries?
(Someone’s sending this link to Reza Aslan and Ben Affleck, right? Just checking.) Because of the unwanted attention to the Malaysian group, other Consulates in majority-Muslim nations are also being targeted, like the one in Jakarta, Indonesia. That group took precautionary action on Facebook, purging its (closed group) membership of anyone who was still in the queue to be approved along with anyone who hadn’t commented in a while. Because who knows if they’re leaking information to the outside. The Malaysian Consulate released a long statement tonight explaining the “hidden crisis of ex-Muslims” and the bizarre version of religious freedom they have in the country: All of this just shows you how difficult it is to be an open atheist in a supposedly “free” nation that’s still dominated by Islamic beliefs, even if it’s not a Muslim theocracy. www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/08/06/a-picture-of-malaysian-atheists-has-led-to-a-government-crackdown-on-ex-muslims/ Well. This is absolutely bloody terrifying. Can't believe this goes on. How can they keep wrapping their warped views until it justifies beheading someone...?!
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 1, 2017 15:23:42 GMT
I love this channel by Darkmatter2525. The latest.
This is great too.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Sept 16, 2017 1:55:02 GMT
As people who were not raised under Jewish culture and traditions, it's common and not extraordinary to eat bacon but for some former Jewish people it must be something powerful and liberating.
"Choosing the truth is courageous, even if it means abandoning what you know." -Razie Brownstone
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 16, 2017 12:10:27 GMT
I think when you are raised in a culture and religion it rubs off on you even if you are not religious any more. I can see how for Jews or Muslims pork remains a disgusting thing even after they leave the religion or even if they are not particularly religious. I know Jews who aren't particularly religious yet the thought of eating pork freaks them out simply because they were raised in a culture where it was considered disgusting. I also know of Muslims who weren't strictly religious, they didn't have a problem with drinking wine, yet when it came to eating bacon it freaked them out totally.
I guess it is a same for each of us. There are cultures where it is OK to eat cat, dog, rat, but it is utterly disgusting to me and I couldn't bring myself to it. Not for any religious reason, but simply because I wasn't raised in a culture where it was OK. To be honest I can't even bring myself to eat shrimp, octopus, shell and the like. Out of water I only eat fish.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Sept 16, 2017 13:50:49 GMT
So you don't eat shellfish because it's an abomination? (Lev 9:11-12) Just kidding! In all seriousness, out of the abominable acts carried and/or condoned in the bible such as rape, slavery and murder, I can't wrap my head how eating shellfish is an abomination but not the other stuff mentioned which are truly despicable crimes. I guess some people are more able to conquer their fears instilled by religion and culture than others, truly meaning they can't bring themselves to believe such ridiculous nonsense anymore even if for some of us it's as simple as eating pork. If Razie chose reason over faith at such an old age, there's hope some more might dare to remove the blindfold of their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 16, 2017 17:14:57 GMT
So you don't eat shellfish because it's an abomination? (Lev 9:11-12) Just kidding! I know you are kidding, but my reason is actually a lot more down-to-Earth. Simply, in my country shellfish is not a part of traditional cuisine (we have no sea), so growing up we never ate shellfish and whenever I had the chance to try it I chickened out of it because to me it seemed weird and even disgusting. LOL. So I can see how it may be the same with pork for people who grew up in Jewish/Muslim cultures, even if they aren't religious themselves. Oh and I wouldn't try this either. LOL.
|
|