I've not thought calling a mod an idiot was in ones better judgement. 😉
No doot aboot it eh.
Cal
No doot aboot it eh.
Cal
Hi Cal, I guess I was jist jokin' around. Kinda trying to be as pointless as most arguments on issues such as this thread deals with. And trying to be funny - that's not easy you know!
Relax!!! me!!? I'm a busy man!!! No time for listening to music.
Of course you like it - anything sounds manly on a rig like yours that's bigger than my apartment 😉
OK Maybe I'm not respectable, but I'm social as h*ll, When I show up at your place with a 12 pak under each arm you'll see then!!
As far as Wimmin advice- I figure you should let 'em get addicted to the forum first, then later hit 'em with the marriage proposal- at least that's how I see it. Say maybe I should start a relationship advice thread....
😀
Relax!!! me!!? I'm a busy man!!! No time for listening to music.
Of course you like it - anything sounds manly on a rig like yours that's bigger than my apartment 😉
OK Maybe I'm not respectable, but I'm social as h*ll, When I show up at your place with a 12 pak under each arm you'll see then!!
As far as Wimmin advice- I figure you should let 'em get addicted to the forum first, then later hit 'em with the marriage proposal- at least that's how I see it. Say maybe I should start a relationship advice thread....
😀
If the mod (or other member) is a friend of yours, then it's normally OK. My wife calls me an idiot on a regular basis. She may be on to something, eh?
You hereby have permission to call me an idiot any time you like.
And Variac has open permission to come by anytime as long as he's got two twelve-packs of a good ale.
You hereby have permission to call me an idiot any time you like.
And Variac has open permission to come by anytime as long as he's got two twelve-packs of a good ale.
Just to get back to the topic:
Your stand to my assertion that god ultimately created all evil again uses the old excuse hat god created free will - very debatable how much of this really exists - and thus absolves him of any responsibility for the doings of a creature whose dastardly deeds he clearly had foreseen, do we believe the powers which with this construct was endowed.
But you forget that the evil - violence - is a theme going right through all creation, just stepping aside from your purely anthropocentric stance.
And animals being violent do not have the means to choose. So, why create a violent world in which by necessety to survive we also have to become violent? No, a god who foresees what will become of his creation and still does the act - who is more evil in the end? If I can prevent a murder happening in front of my eyes and still not do it - who is more guilty - or is the guilt shared equally.
To the other arguments - why is it more difficult to either accept an universe that sprang into being without a creator - being that creator and its creation itself - or that continously cycles between creation and destruction (big bang/big crunsh) than to accept a creator which than leads to the question ad infinitum - what/ who created him, a being to which we - most difficult things to create when we look back on earth's history - ascribe intelligence?
Your stand to my assertion that god ultimately created all evil again uses the old excuse hat god created free will - very debatable how much of this really exists - and thus absolves him of any responsibility for the doings of a creature whose dastardly deeds he clearly had foreseen, do we believe the powers which with this construct was endowed.
But you forget that the evil - violence - is a theme going right through all creation, just stepping aside from your purely anthropocentric stance.
And animals being violent do not have the means to choose. So, why create a violent world in which by necessety to survive we also have to become violent? No, a god who foresees what will become of his creation and still does the act - who is more evil in the end? If I can prevent a murder happening in front of my eyes and still not do it - who is more guilty - or is the guilt shared equally.
To the other arguments - why is it more difficult to either accept an universe that sprang into being without a creator - being that creator and its creation itself - or that continously cycles between creation and destruction (big bang/big crunsh) than to accept a creator which than leads to the question ad infinitum - what/ who created him, a being to which we - most difficult things to create when we look back on earth's history - ascribe intelligence?
Variac said:
Yes, it's tough to see (hear) what the persons thinking when it's on a forum. I know I've looked at my "funny posts" after they were posted and have realized it could be taken any number of ways. Some not funny at all. Sorry if I missed yours.
Thanks for the generosity buddy. Here at the WOW residence, we have it on tap. Almost an endless supply. Including a well received pale ale. If you bring beer, you drink ours and leave yours for future consideration.
I wanted first dibs.
Ok, you idiot.
And when in my neck of the woods...
Cal
And to end it here for me: I have found that humans believe in that god they have a need to believe.
As the idea of god for me has no relevance at all and I feel rather more comfortable with the idea of no god than the idea of a god of any kind - be he/she of muslim, vedic/shinto/christian/pagan/ turtle island/macedonien/thracien/teutonic/anglosaxon or any other origin.
I simply do not feel the need to believe in any supernatural power to comfort me - my comfort rather lies in the knowledge that my ancestry does go back hundreds of millions of years on this earth and that I am truly a child of this planet and among my predecessors I can count a myriad of species now long gone, and I am not a special creation relying on the whim of a supreme, capricious being.
As the idea of god for me has no relevance at all and I feel rather more comfortable with the idea of no god than the idea of a god of any kind - be he/she of muslim, vedic/shinto/christian/pagan/ turtle island/macedonien/thracien/teutonic/anglosaxon or any other origin.
I simply do not feel the need to believe in any supernatural power to comfort me - my comfort rather lies in the knowledge that my ancestry does go back hundreds of millions of years on this earth and that I am truly a child of this planet and among my predecessors I can count a myriad of species now long gone, and I am not a special creation relying on the whim of a supreme, capricious being.
AK,
Eloquently put.
I have similar thoughts. But one thing I will never do is attempt to convince another that my spirituality is superior to theirs. Nor will I say their source of strength is misguided. I feel that all should gain strength by reaching out to that which offers said strength and embracing it.
Be it a higher being
or just a great big pair of speakers
Cal
Eloquently put.
I have similar thoughts. But one thing I will never do is attempt to convince another that my spirituality is superior to theirs. Nor will I say their source of strength is misguided. I feel that all should gain strength by reaching out to that which offers said strength and embracing it.
Be it a higher being
or just a great big pair of speakers
Cal
Well, I could offer several "scientific" laws that have relation with blind religion. For eg.SY said:
- "Stupidity in a closed system cannot decrease". (2nd law of stupidodynamics)
and it shouldn't be skipped where it is derivered from:
- "Total intelligence of a closed system is conserved. Just population grows". (sanity conservation law)
😀
On more serious note, all religions roots to 2 fundamental human selfishnesses:
- people refuse to die - they seek for any kind of twisty ways to reassure that they don't cease to exist after death. All of the bulk in any religion is just a means to justify that hope.
- people refuse to take responsibility for their lives. They need someone to blame, and if there is noone to blame, it must be will of god.
And because humans are the only species with such fundamental needs, of course they must be very special, and of course its a will of god.
On even more serious note, religion is immensely personal thing. There exists absolutely no living being that has anything to do with what any other being believes in. ANY attempt to force one's beliefs onto anyone else is an act of violence against free will, and is by ALL religions in their core considered a SIN. And of course that doesn't stop human race from killing in the name of "god of the day".
wrt to marrying religion and science, its such a futile attempt that it is beyond laughable. It always brings me back to "scientific" laws outlined above. Science is a very concrete structure of approaches that fundamentally excludes that which is unobservable - it simply can NOT deal with it. When you can objectively observe the god on demand, science will deal with it. And of course god is defined in such a way that makes this fundamentally impossible.
Anyone who comes up with claim that any scientific evidence "proves" existence of (my) god is clearly shouting in the public
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT Scientists believe in god? Yes, many do. Is it because what they've learned? No. Thats because they choose so. Are they free from fundamental human needs above? You bet not. Is it the same kind of god the shouters advertise? Not a chance in hell. Shouters don't even have capacity to imagine how those scientists think of god. One specific god idea is pathetic, violent dogma.
It is fundamentally impossible to prove or disprove existence of god, or for that matter, any number of transcendental beings. The only thing possible is personal choice, and every single living human being has made his choice, even if he refuses to admit that or cannot express it.
Arguing about "truth" in this matter is a bad way to spend time. At best, people could exchange their paradigm outlooks, to enrich each others imagination.
Not universally true. For example, Judaism is mute with respect to an afterlife. The prayers offered at funerals and memorials to the dead (the kaddishim) don't even mention death.
SY said:
I enjoy doing my Jesuitical best to interpret for my Jewish bretheren the "mute" stance on the afterlife -- in the strictly "logical" sense (for those of you who had a smattering of liberal education), when one is "mute" they acknowledge, i.e, do not reject a proposition.
An easy way to look at the Judaic concept of the afterlife can be seen by delving further into Genesis 2-7 where the "soul" is breathed into the lungs of Adam. The "soul" being a permanent manifestation of HIS presence within us.
This has a beautiful adaptation in the opening words of the Gospel of John -- and you have to be able to read Greek to understand -- the term "pneuma" is used -- meaning "breath".
Judaism after the Fall of the Temple fractured even more badly than it had been (at any time since the Babylonian captivity.) The "literalists" predominated...it is a very long story and has its counterparts in present Christianity and Islam. This "literalism" is what Maimonides railed against.
from Moses to Maimonides...
I've tried to remain silent on this issue. I find the task of being reverse missionary a rather fruitless one, but I have this to say:
Any divine being who requires his believers to follow a specific set of rituals - such as praying at predetermined occasions, eating or not eating certain types of food - to manifest a "true faith", is a divine being with all the failings of us humans. Thus, one might argue that divinity is the same as humanity, something which I find rather compelling.
On the other hand, a divinity which doesn't impose a set of rituals is largely irrelevant, since then it would have no greater effect on daily life than does a set of non-religous laws and ethics.
Either way, why worry? Just be nice to the guy next to you, and should it happen to be so that there is indeed an after life which depends on what we did while living - well isn't that swell?
If a "god" has something to say about this - well, this message board is open to anyone, right?😀
Rune
Any divine being who requires his believers to follow a specific set of rituals - such as praying at predetermined occasions, eating or not eating certain types of food - to manifest a "true faith", is a divine being with all the failings of us humans. Thus, one might argue that divinity is the same as humanity, something which I find rather compelling.
On the other hand, a divinity which doesn't impose a set of rituals is largely irrelevant, since then it would have no greater effect on daily life than does a set of non-religous laws and ethics.
Either way, why worry? Just be nice to the guy next to you, and should it happen to be so that there is indeed an after life which depends on what we did while living - well isn't that swell?
If a "god" has something to say about this - well, this message board is open to anyone, right?😀
Rune
SY said:
This one?
Quote:
One version, told in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time has the scientist as Bertrand Russell (who was many things, but not exactly a scientist) giving a lecture on astronomy (which, if it was intended for the general public, was the kind of thing he often did). In any event, his presentation of science's view of cosmology was challenged by a little old lady who believed the earth was not only flat but resting on the back of a giant turtle. When questioned as to what the turtle was standing on, the woman replied, "it's turtles all the way down." [end quote]
I believe in turtles. Well, I did until mine escaped. Now I believe in frogs.
Cal
I'm a friend of bluebeards. He thought that I might be interested in the threads of this topic as he and I have often discussed our views on this topic.
I have always hoped to find someone who viewed the meaning of life as I do and I find, audio-kraut, that you mirror my thinking to a T. To me, you wrote it all in your #65 and #67 post..............Toni
I have always hoped to find someone who viewed the meaning of life as I do and I find, audio-kraut, that you mirror my thinking to a T. To me, you wrote it all in your #65 and #67 post..............Toni
I hope this makes you feel not so alone anymore.
Being agnostik can be a very lonely stand. I am in the lucky position to have a business partner who thinks alike, and a family that choose the same path - although I would ot have interferred or interfere if my children turn to faith.
Is there a word to describe someone who thinks the whole subject is so ludicrous that it's not even worth discussing?
I find it very ironic that some people can say that someone who beleives in creation can not be a legitimate scientist. by that logic someone who beleves in the theory of evolution would also have to be excluded from calling themselves scientist because there is faith involved in beleiving evolution also, seing as the definition of faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove. And there is very little evidence of evolution. I do not hold any animocity toward anyone because of what they beleive. It would be nice if everybody felt that way. why do people have to think other people are stupid because they choose to beleive diferently? Things would be so much more enjoyable if we could refrain from name calling and sarcasm and just use civil arguments. Why not just tell people what you beleive and why instead of what you beleive and how stupid, and ignorant everybody is that dosn't agree with you. just my $.02 worth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.