QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 30 2009, 06:30 PM)
Of course it's not scientific or proof. Here's what the Bible says, even though that's not scientific either:
I was talking about a web site claiming some science in the Koran.
I was talking about a web site claiming some science in the Koran.
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 30 2009, 02:30 PM)
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for copyright infringement, lack of discussion of the copied text, pure cut-and-paste without even the shallowest attempt to format it correctly for this forum, and lack of proper attribution to copyright holder. You set a poor model for our incoming freshmen class to emulate and will likely never write a worthy essay on a scientific topic.]
Thank Cthulhu.
Thank Cthulhu.
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 23 2006, 08:35 PM)
The people that are still healed today would disagree with you.
Your petty little god hate amputees. Why? She has never healed a single one of them. Yet a fair number of amphibians get healed when they lose a limb.
Salamanders > People
Your petty little god hate amputees. Why? She has never healed a single one of them. Yet a fair number of amphibians get healed when they lose a limb.
Salamanders > People
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 31 2009, 07:02 AM)
Your petty little god hate amputees. Why? She has never healed a single one of them. Yet a fair number of amphibians get healed when they lose a limb.
Salamanders > People
She?
Salamanders > People
She?
QUOTE (Moderator+)
Moderator: Suspended 15 days for copyright infringement,
Are there any conditions under which a person can quote the Bible, and if so what are they? Do the same rules apply to the quoting of everything, or are there different rules applied to the quoting of different sources?
Are there any conditions under which a person can quote the Bible, and if so what are they? Do the same rules apply to the quoting of everything, or are there different rules applied to the quoting of different sources?
QUOTE (Moderator+)
lack of discussion of the copied text,
Exactly what does that have to do with the wrongfully presented material?
Exactly what does that have to do with the wrongfully presented material?
QUOTE (Moderator+)
pure cut-and-paste without even the shallowest attempt to format it correctly for this forum,
How could I have formatted it to make it acceptable?
How could I have formatted it to make it acceptable?
QUOTE (Moderator+)
and lack of proper attribution to copyright holder.
I thought the Bible was pretty much free to quote, and that everyone participating is familiar with what it is.
I thought the Bible was pretty much free to quote, and that everyone participating is familiar with what it is.
QUOTE (Moderator+)
You set a poor model for our incoming freshmen class to emulate
Maybe this will teach them not to quote from the Bible, or if they do to make a comment about it and format it correctly, or whatever all would have been necessary in order for the quote to have been acceptable. Hopefully this will be a learning example for people so they can avoid making the same mistake in the future, and it will be made clear how it would have been possible to have presented the quote in an acceptable way if it would have been possible to do so.
Butman, we agree on that.
Physfan
There is a strong argument that the enlightenment grew out of religion, as a rejection of orthodoxy in approaches to knowledge. Since radical Christianity was originally an anti-orthodox approach to Judaism, enlightenment scientists were really doing little more than emulating Christ's rejection of the religious authority of the Pharises in seeking a "truer truth" than the one given to him by human authority.
Science continues to uphold this fundamental antithetical approach to received knowledge. However, its heavy institutionalization and professionalization throughout several centuries of development have generated a potential for orthodoxy that rivals that which early scientists were challenging in religion.
So the question now is whether science will continue down the road of growing orthodoxy and decreasing tolerance for the radical questioning that led to its creation in the first place. Or will it rekindle its roots and embrace radicalism and critical questioning against orthodoxy. Or perhaps it will maintain its orthodox strands and institutions, but evolve to also embrace the radicalism and critical questioning that challenge that orthodoxy.
Probably many would say this is already what it does, but the empirical test for this lies in studying those instances in which radicalism and unorthodox approaches are shunned, and why or on what grounds. If the grounds have to do with orthodox standards for what kind of radicalism and questioning are valid and what kind aren't, that leaves a gap for new forms of knowledge to emerge, which may eventually leave science with only its orthodoxy, at which point it will have fully sedimented into the role of religion before it.
This sounds like a copy and paste from some creationist bullsh-t.
Maybe this will teach them not to quote from the Bible, or if they do to make a comment about it and format it correctly, or whatever all would have been necessary in order for the quote to have been acceptable. Hopefully this will be a learning example for people so they can avoid making the same mistake in the future, and it will be made clear how it would have been possible to have presented the quote in an acceptable way if it would have been possible to do so.
QUOTE (Moderator+)
and will likely never write a worthy essay on a scientific topic.
Well, at least I can agree about that last part.
Well, at least I can agree about that last part.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 26 2009, 11:27 AM)
The first link doesn't say what the Koran says
And you knew better than to quote the Koran in this forum 
, right?
, right?
Science cannot exist without philosophical foundations. Many scientists forget this because they are standing on the shoulders of giants who stood on the shoulders of giant philosopher/scientists, but it is true. Empiricism is a philosophy, along with every other aspect of scientific method.
There is a strong argument that the enlightenment grew out of religion, as a rejection of orthodoxy in approaches to knowledge. Since radical Christianity was originally an anti-orthodox approach to Judaism, enlightenment scientists were really doing little more than emulating Christ's rejection of the religious authority of the Pharises in seeking a "truer truth" than the one given to him by human authority.
Science continues to uphold this fundamental antithetical approach to received knowledge. However, its heavy institutionalization and professionalization throughout several centuries of development have generated a potential for orthodoxy that rivals that which early scientists were challenging in religion.
So the question now is whether science will continue down the road of growing orthodoxy and decreasing tolerance for the radical questioning that led to its creation in the first place. Or will it rekindle its roots and embrace radicalism and critical questioning against orthodoxy. Or perhaps it will maintain its orthodox strands and institutions, but evolve to also embrace the radicalism and critical questioning that challenge that orthodoxy.
Probably many would say this is already what it does, but the empirical test for this lies in studying those instances in which radicalism and unorthodox approaches are shunned, and why or on what grounds. If the grounds have to do with orthodox standards for what kind of radicalism and questioning are valid and what kind aren't, that leaves a gap for new forms of knowledge to emerge, which may eventually leave science with only its orthodoxy, at which point it will have fully sedimented into the role of religion before it.
There is a strong argument that the enlightenment grew out of religion, as a rejection of orthodoxy in approaches to knowledge. Since radical Christianity was originally an anti-orthodox approach to Judaism, enlightenment scientists were really doing little more than emulating Christ's rejection of the religious authority of the Pharises in seeking a "truer truth" than the one given to him by human authority.
Science continues to uphold this fundamental antithetical approach to received knowledge. However, its heavy institutionalization and professionalization throughout several centuries of development have generated a potential for orthodoxy that rivals that which early scientists were challenging in religion.
So the question now is whether science will continue down the road of growing orthodoxy and decreasing tolerance for the radical questioning that led to its creation in the first place. Or will it rekindle its roots and embrace radicalism and critical questioning against orthodoxy. Or perhaps it will maintain its orthodox strands and institutions, but evolve to also embrace the radicalism and critical questioning that challenge that orthodoxy.
Probably many would say this is already what it does, but the empirical test for this lies in studying those instances in which radicalism and unorthodox approaches are shunned, and why or on what grounds. If the grounds have to do with orthodox standards for what kind of radicalism and questioning are valid and what kind aren't, that leaves a gap for new forms of knowledge to emerge, which may eventually leave science with only its orthodoxy, at which point it will have fully sedimented into the role of religion before it.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 15 2009, 07:30 PM)
Probably many would say this is already what it does, but the empirical test for this lies in studying those instances in which radicalism and unorthodox approaches are shunned, and why or on what grounds. If the grounds have to do with orthodox standards for what kind of radicalism and questioning are valid and what kind aren't, that leaves a gap for new forms of knowledge to emerge, which may eventually leave science with only its orthodoxy, at which point it will have fully sedimented into the role of religion before it.
Boring. Pointless. Wrong.
Your idea of "radical" scientific thought is basically a bunch of idiots running around demanding other's attention. Leave the work to the professionals.
Boring. Pointless. Wrong.
Your idea of "radical" scientific thought is basically a bunch of idiots running around demanding other's attention. Leave the work to the professionals.
QUOTE
Your idea of "radical" scientific thought is basically a bunch of idiots running around demanding other's attention. Leave the work to the professionals.
Butman, we agree on that.
Physfan
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 15 2009, 07:30 PM)
There is a strong argument that the enlightenment grew out of religion, as a rejection of orthodoxy in approaches to knowledge. Since radical Christianity was originally an anti-orthodox approach to Judaism, enlightenment scientists were really doing little more than emulating Christ's rejection of the religious authority of the Pharises in seeking a "truer truth" than the one given to him by human authority.
Science continues to uphold this fundamental antithetical approach to received knowledge. However, its heavy institutionalization and professionalization throughout several centuries of development have generated a potential for orthodoxy that rivals that which early scientists were challenging in religion.
So the question now is whether science will continue down the road of growing orthodoxy and decreasing tolerance for the radical questioning that led to its creation in the first place. Or will it rekindle its roots and embrace radicalism and critical questioning against orthodoxy. Or perhaps it will maintain its orthodox strands and institutions, but evolve to also embrace the radicalism and critical questioning that challenge that orthodoxy.
Probably many would say this is already what it does, but the empirical test for this lies in studying those instances in which radicalism and unorthodox approaches are shunned, and why or on what grounds. If the grounds have to do with orthodox standards for what kind of radicalism and questioning are valid and what kind aren't, that leaves a gap for new forms of knowledge to emerge, which may eventually leave science with only its orthodoxy, at which point it will have fully sedimented into the role of religion before it.
This sounds like a copy and paste from some creationist bullsh-t.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
There is a strong argument that the enlightenment grew out of religion, as a rejection of orthodoxy in approaches to knowledge. Since radical Christianity was originally an anti-orthodox approach to Judaism, enlightenment scientists were really doing little more than emulating Christ's rejection of the religious authority of the Pharises in seeking a "truer truth" than the one given to him by human authority.
I wonder if it will ever become popular to try to think about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way. So far I'm the only one I know of who's trying to do so, and it is met with opposition from all directions. I guess in a way it makes sense, since it would conflict with what theists have been taught to believe and feel comfortable with, and it would completely destroy what atheists feel comfortable with, so 
I end up being hated by all 
.
I end up being hated by all .
Let us know when you start.
All you've done so far is misuse words.
And base arguements on ignorance rather than on knowledge.
All you've done so far is misuse words.
And base arguements on ignorance rather than on knowledge.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I end up being hated by all
Not hated, but ridiculed.
Not hated, but ridiculed.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 16 2009, 02:23 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I end up being hated by all
Not hated, but ridiculed.
Your attempts to ridicule me would require a person to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
From my pov a person would insult himself by believing such crap, so your "ridicule" is like being ridiculed by a hamster or something. I sort of feel sorry for you guys though
since you're supposedly interested in physics.
Your attempts to ridicule me would require a person to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
No, it simply requires a person who knows how to use words properly.
Not hated, but ridiculed.
Your attempts to ridicule me would require a person to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.From my pov a person would insult himself by believing such crap, so your "ridicule" is like being ridiculed by a hamster or something. I sort of feel sorry for you guys though
since you're supposedly interested in physics.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 16 2009, 02:08 PM)
Let us know when you start.
Here's a refresher:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
Here's a refresher:
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.
9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.
17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 16 2009, 02:51 PM)
Here's a refresher:
As I said let us know when you start.
As I said let us know when you start.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 16 2009, 08:18 PM)
Your attempts to ridicule me would require a person to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior
native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.No, it simply requires a person who knows how to use words properly.
nopEda,
You are basically saying there are two choices:
A. If God exists is he an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
B. If God exists he is an alien.
Just because you pick B doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with you picks A.
Do you have anything new that may convince us that God is an alien?
You are basically saying there are two choices:
A. If God exists is he an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
B. If God exists he is an alien.
Just because you pick B doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with you picks A.
Do you have anything new that may convince us that God is an alien?
God is an idea. This idea exists within humans.
Psychologist Karl Jung discovered "God within" as an psychological archetype, and by studying this archetype within himself claimed to have discovered "God Himself"
As long as you fail to understand this basic empirical fact about God's existence, you are prone to these silly ideas like that God is an alien or a person on Earth, etc.
The CONCEPT that Jesus is simultaneously the son of God AND a human is a theological tool for teaching theology. Christ was a teacher among other things, and probably this was his main purpose. His main teaching is for people to follow his example and teach others to do so as well, the way he did.
His God-humanness is a conceptual bridge for people to make sense of what the Jewish, old-testament, theological ideas and prescriptions were. Only by being the son of God was Christ able to draw the amount of wrath and evil he did. If you can accept the idea that he is the son of God for long enough to follow the story of the crucifixion, you will see that the idea that humanity was/is imperfect and susceptible to evil enough to destroy (the son of) God to eliminate the possibility of their being a power/truth higher than themselves or any other human authority.
In principle "God" is nothing more than the concept that there is a truth beyond what any human can ever absolutely establish or dictate. In other words, perfection is unreachable for humans. They are inherently fallible. Still, the will to assert infallibility in order to claim absolute power over others is a perpetual temptation. With that temptation comes the will to destroy the possibility that a greater truth or authority is possible than yourself, or your king, which is the same as the will to destroy God.
The story of Christ proves that it is possible to destroy God on Earth, but that the consequences are the inability to be forgiven and to have a conscience eternally plagued with "burning" guilt or shame. Fear of death is another consequence of denying God, which Christianity resolves by offering people faith in eternal life through redemption. You don't have to take my word for it. You can experiment with denying/destroying God within yourself. Just don't say I didn't warn you of the consequences. Far be it from me to "lead people into the temptation to do evil."
Don't accuse me of preaching Christianity or creationism because I try to explain these MYTHOLOGIES. It just pains me to see how theologically impoverished some of these claims about the existence of God are. I'm always happy to hear why my scientific knowledge is poor and read explanations that enrich it. Hopefully, this one will enrich your theology some.
Remember, though, you don't have to become a believer to study theology from a scientific point of view. Yes, there is the risk that you will at some point CHOOSE to exercise faith in addition to your other intellectual skills, but there's no risk of contracting it like a contagious disease - at least I don't think there is.
Psychologist Karl Jung discovered "God within" as an psychological archetype, and by studying this archetype within himself claimed to have discovered "God Himself"
As long as you fail to understand this basic empirical fact about God's existence, you are prone to these silly ideas like that God is an alien or a person on Earth, etc.
The CONCEPT that Jesus is simultaneously the son of God AND a human is a theological tool for teaching theology. Christ was a teacher among other things, and probably this was his main purpose. His main teaching is for people to follow his example and teach others to do so as well, the way he did.
His God-humanness is a conceptual bridge for people to make sense of what the Jewish, old-testament, theological ideas and prescriptions were. Only by being the son of God was Christ able to draw the amount of wrath and evil he did. If you can accept the idea that he is the son of God for long enough to follow the story of the crucifixion, you will see that the idea that humanity was/is imperfect and susceptible to evil enough to destroy (the son of) God to eliminate the possibility of their being a power/truth higher than themselves or any other human authority.
In principle "God" is nothing more than the concept that there is a truth beyond what any human can ever absolutely establish or dictate. In other words, perfection is unreachable for humans. They are inherently fallible. Still, the will to assert infallibility in order to claim absolute power over others is a perpetual temptation. With that temptation comes the will to destroy the possibility that a greater truth or authority is possible than yourself, or your king, which is the same as the will to destroy God.
The story of Christ proves that it is possible to destroy God on Earth, but that the consequences are the inability to be forgiven and to have a conscience eternally plagued with "burning" guilt or shame. Fear of death is another consequence of denying God, which Christianity resolves by offering people faith in eternal life through redemption. You don't have to take my word for it. You can experiment with denying/destroying God within yourself. Just don't say I didn't warn you of the consequences. Far be it from me to "lead people into the temptation to do evil."
Don't accuse me of preaching Christianity or creationism because I try to explain these MYTHOLOGIES. It just pains me to see how theologically impoverished some of these claims about the existence of God are. I'm always happy to hear why my scientific knowledge is poor and read explanations that enrich it. Hopefully, this one will enrich your theology some.
Remember, though, you don't have to become a believer to study theology from a scientific point of view. Yes, there is the risk that you will at some point CHOOSE to exercise faith in addition to your other intellectual skills, but there's no risk of contracting it like a contagious disease - at least I don't think there is.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 16 2009, 09:07 PM)
God is an idea.
yup
you went from "god is an idea" to "god exists as empirical fact." no, just no.
you went from "god is an idea" to "god exists as empirical fact." no, just no.
Don't accuse me of preaching Christianity or creationism because I try to explain these MYTHOLOGIES. It just pains me to see how theologically impoverished some of these claims about the existence of God are. I'm always happy to hear why my scientific knowledge is poor and read explanations that enrich it. Hopefully, this one will enrich your theology some.
Theology is the study of meaningless opinions. It doesn't add anything to the discussion except for a false sense of intelligence.
AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAA
In case you haven't heard, different sects of Christianity have radically different interpretations of the same text. Theology isn't the search for truth, it's the search for opinions.
yup
QUOTE
As long as you fail to understand this basic empirical fact about God's existence
you went from "god is an idea" to "god exists as empirical fact." no, just no.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As long as you fail to understand this basic empirical fact about God's existence |
you went from "god is an idea" to "god exists as empirical fact." no, just no.
Don't accuse me of preaching Christianity or creationism because I try to explain these MYTHOLOGIES. It just pains me to see how theologically impoverished some of these claims about the existence of God are. I'm always happy to hear why my scientific knowledge is poor and read explanations that enrich it. Hopefully, this one will enrich your theology some.
Theology is the study of meaningless opinions. It doesn't add anything to the discussion except for a false sense of intelligence.
QUOTE
Remember, though, you don't have to become a believer to study theology from a scientific point of view.
AHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAA
In case you haven't heard, different sects of Christianity have radically different interpretations of the same text. Theology isn't the search for truth, it's the search for opinions.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 17 2009, 01:07 AM)
The story of Christ proves that it is possible to destroy God on Earth,
Does the story of Jack and the Beanstalk prove that it is possible to kill giants?
Does the story of Jack and the Beanstalk prove that it is possible to kill giants?
nopEda
No, we can ridicule you based simply on the stupidity you post, your total disregard for the meaning of words and your being a total A hole. and that's even before we deal with the false dicotomy of either agreeing with your stupidity or believing something even more stupid(a lose loser proposition if I've ever seen one.
The only realistic way to deal with the concept of a supernatural force or being is to discount it until someone shows valid evidence of it's existence. That applies to unicorns, werewolves, fairies in the garden and it particularly applies to your alien gods fantasy. You are a nutcase trying to bring everyone else down to your level of delusion, not a "realistic" thinker at all. As such you are perfectly deserving of being killfiled, PERMANENTLY, if you cannot change your insulting behavior.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Your attempts to ridicule me would require a person to believe that if God exists he could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years.
No, we can ridicule you based simply on the stupidity you post, your total disregard for the meaning of words and your being a total A hole. and that's even before we deal with the false dicotomy of either agreeing with your stupidity or believing something even more stupid(a lose loser proposition if I've ever seen one.
The only realistic way to deal with the concept of a supernatural force or being is to discount it until someone shows valid evidence of it's existence. That applies to unicorns, werewolves, fairies in the garden and it particularly applies to your alien gods fantasy. You are a nutcase trying to bring everyone else down to your level of delusion, not a "realistic" thinker at all. As such you are perfectly deserving of being killfiled, PERMANENTLY, if you cannot change your insulting behavior.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 17 2009, 04:29 PM)
nopEda
No, we can ridicule you based simply on the stupidity you post, your total disregard for the meaning of words and your being a total A hole. and that's even before we deal with the false dicotomy of either agreeing with your stupidity or believing something even more stupid(a lose loser proposition if I've ever seen one.
All alternatives to what I point out have been much more stupid than what's on my list, no doubt. So if you want to pretend I'm wrong, all evidence says you must take the more stupid path.
No, we can ridicule you based simply on the stupidity you post, your total disregard for the meaning of words and your being a total A hole. and that's even before we deal with the false dicotomy of either agreeing with your stupidity or believing something even more stupid(a lose loser proposition if I've ever seen one.
All alternatives to what I point out have been much more stupid than what's on my list, no doubt. So if you want to pretend I'm wrong, all evidence says you must take the more stupid path.
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
The only realistic way to deal with the concept of a supernatural force or being is to discount it until someone shows valid evidence of it's existence. That applies to unicorns, werewolves, fairies in the garden and it particularly applies to your alien gods fantasy. You are a nutcase trying to bring everyone else down to your level of delusion, not a "realistic" thinker at all.
That's blatantly untrue. In contrast to that blatant dishonesty I'm the ONLY ONE even making an attempt. The ONLY ONE!!!
That's blatantly untrue. In contrast to that blatant dishonesty I'm the ONLY ONE even making an attempt. The ONLY ONE!!!
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
As such you are perfectly deserving of being killfiled, PERMANENTLY, if you cannot change your insulting behavior.
So...you don't need to change YOUR insulting behavior...I just need to quit insulting you back for it...
I've also noticed that people who lie about me often get more offended for me pointing out their dishonesties, than I do about their lies. So you're saying that anyone else can treat me whatever way they want to, but I can't respond in a similar way? The majority of posters in this forum try to be insulting assholes, in case you hadn't noticed.
So...you don't need to change YOUR insulting behavior...I just need to quit insulting you back for it...
I've also noticed that people who lie about me often get more offended for me pointing out their dishonesties, than I do about their lies. So you're saying that anyone else can treat me whatever way they want to, but I can't respond in a similar way? The majority of posters in this forum try to be insulting assholes, in case you hadn't noticed.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 18 2009, 03:35 AM)
All alternatives to what I point out have been much more stupid than what's on my list, no doubt. So if you want to pretend I'm wrong, all evidence says you must take the more stupid path.
What evidence?
What evidence?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2009, 01:40 PM)
you went from "god is an idea" to "god exists as empirical fact." no, just no.
The empirical fact about God's existence is that God exists an an idea inside people. The idea exists as an idea. The meanings and interpretations that people CREATE regarding God, the bible stories, and other mythologies are also empirically observable facts.
You are bent on denying the empirical observability of things that aren't physical objects, but you have to admit that you have witnessed that the idea of God does exist, don't you?
Besides, energy is not directly observable except through the effects it has on matter, so how can you say that energy exists empirically? Doesn't only matter truly exist from an empirical standpoint?
The empirical fact about God's existence is that God exists an an idea inside people. The idea exists as an idea. The meanings and interpretations that people CREATE regarding God, the bible stories, and other mythologies are also empirically observable facts.
You are bent on denying the empirical observability of things that aren't physical objects, but you have to admit that you have witnessed that the idea of God does exist, don't you?
Besides, energy is not directly observable except through the effects it has on matter, so how can you say that energy exists empirically? Doesn't only matter truly exist from an empirical standpoint?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 18 2009, 12:08 AM)
Besides, energy is not directly observable except through the effects it has on matter, so how can you say that energy exists empirically? Doesn't only matter truly exist from an empirical standpoint?
You can measure it.
You can measure it.
noiDea
No, you are the only one dense enough not to see how utterly stupid you are acting, and how bereft of logic your position is. Alien gods are just another layer of stupid added to the superstitious non-sense of any gods at all.
It's just GOT TO suck to be you.
Grumpy
QUOTE
That's blatantly untrue. In contrast to that blatant dishonesty I'm the ONLY ONE even making an attempt. The ONLY ONE!!!
No, you are the only one dense enough not to see how utterly stupid you are acting, and how bereft of logic your position is. Alien gods are just another layer of stupid added to the superstitious non-sense of any gods at all.
It's just GOT TO suck to be you.
Grumpy
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 18 2009, 12:41 AM)
You can measure it.
Only by observing relative states of matter and comparing them.
Only by observing relative states of matter and comparing them.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 18 2009, 01:51 AM)
Only by observing relative states of matter and comparing them.
QUOTE (PhilP+03October2006, in the AM)
History conforms much of the Bible, as well as fulfilled prophecy. It even describes in detail the events of the "Last Days", which are now, beginning with WWI and the disastrous events which shortly followed it. More and more scientists and others are professing belief in "intelligent design" these days, rather than evolution, the more they discover the laws and stucture governing all the wondrous things studied, including the life around us. Check out this article for one.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm
The newer version of the link with the asterisk after a quote in a NY Times article -
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/nytimes.html - April 2002
"When the neo-creos go public -- as they did recently in a hearing before the Ohio Board of Education, which they were petitioning for equal time in the classroom with Darwinism -- they do not stake any obviously foolish claims. They concede that the earth is billions of years old, and that some evolution may have taken place once the basic biochemical structures were brought into being. What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ''naturalistic'' theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design -- evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer."
I don't think that term I italicized has caught on, I never heard of it before. What I have heard is Freeman Dyson and his good sense for the biosphere...
"Well, that didn’t take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn’t such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn’t seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn’t a joke – the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).
The ranks of America’s “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing
New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson – 85 years old and based in Princeton – not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.
“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it’s true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow – so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.
Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating,
Professor Dyson isn’t even a conservative: he’s a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who’ve never had to worry about grocery bills”." -writes Chris Ayers, the bold is mine -MrB.
http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/04/0...-global-warming
What I think this shows, for all to see, is that science and one's religion is inseperable and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/nytimes.html - April 2002
"When the neo-creos go public -- as they did recently in a hearing before the Ohio Board of Education, which they were petitioning for equal time in the classroom with Darwinism -- they do not stake any obviously foolish claims. They concede that the earth is billions of years old, and that some evolution may have taken place once the basic biochemical structures were brought into being. What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ''naturalistic'' theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design -- evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer."
I don't think that term I italicized has caught on, I never heard of it before. What I have heard is Freeman Dyson and his good sense for the biosphere...
"Well, that didn’t take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn’t such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn’t seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn’t a joke – the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).
The ranks of America’s “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing
New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson – 85 years old and based in Princeton – not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.
“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it’s true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow – so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.
Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating,
Professor Dyson isn’t even a conservative: he’s a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who’ve never had to worry about grocery bills”." -writes Chris Ayers, the bold is mine -MrB.
http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/04/0...-global-warming
What I think this shows, for all to see, is that science and one's religion is inseperable and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
The man in the street once expected the SCIENTIST to interpret the universe and human life. Now he only asks the scientist to help him live, to diminish his effort and pain. The scientist is becoming more and more the technician and less and less the SAGE. Science no longer exists - it has been replaced by the SCIENCES and this dispersion of knowledge, this lack of a clear image of what is happening on earth, is one cause of today's HUMAN ANGUISH.
http://mpec.sc.mahidol.ac.th/preedeeporn/AUTHORSL.HTM#Lopez
Mahidol Physics Education Centre
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm
The newer version of the link with the asterisk after a quote in a NY Times article -
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
QUOTE
* Prominent academics and scientists who have gone on record as subscribing to the idea of "an Intelligent Designer" include Phillip E. Johnson, who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley; biochemist Michael J. Behe, author of the book Darwin's Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution; mathematician William A. Dembski; philosopher of logic Alvin Plantinga; physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson; astronomer Allan Sandage; and others too numerous to list.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/nytimes.html - April 2002
"When the neo-creos go public -- as they did recently in a hearing before the Ohio Board of Education, which they were petitioning for equal time in the classroom with Darwinism -- they do not stake any obviously foolish claims. They concede that the earth is billions of years old, and that some evolution may have taken place once the basic biochemical structures were brought into being. What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ''naturalistic'' theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design -- evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer."
I don't think that term I italicized has caught on, I never heard of it before. What I have heard is Freeman Dyson and his good sense for the biosphere...
"Well, that didn’t take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn’t such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn’t seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn’t a joke – the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).
The ranks of America’s “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing
New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson – 85 years old and based in Princeton – not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.
“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it’s true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow – so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.
Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating,
Professor Dyson isn’t even a conservative: he’s a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who’ve never had to worry about grocery bills”." -writes Chris Ayers, the bold is mine -MrB.
http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/04/0...-global-warming
What I think this shows, for all to see, is that science and one's religion is inseperable and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * Prominent academics and scientists who have gone on record as subscribing to the idea of "an Intelligent Designer" include Phillip E. Johnson, who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley; biochemist Michael J. Behe, author of the book Darwin's Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution; mathematician William A. Dembski; philosopher of logic Alvin Plantinga; physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson; astronomer Allan Sandage; and others too numerous to list. |
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/nytimes.html - April 2002
"When the neo-creos go public -- as they did recently in a hearing before the Ohio Board of Education, which they were petitioning for equal time in the classroom with Darwinism -- they do not stake any obviously foolish claims. They concede that the earth is billions of years old, and that some evolution may have taken place once the basic biochemical structures were brought into being. What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ''naturalistic'' theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design -- evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer."
I don't think that term I italicized has caught on, I never heard of it before. What I have heard is Freeman Dyson and his good sense for the biosphere...
"Well, that didn’t take long, did it? After six months of economic hardship and one unusually chilly winter, it seems that Americans are beginning to conclude that perhaps global warming wasn’t such a big deal after all. Blowing $30,000 on a solar roof doesn’t seem such a great move these days. And for the price of a Toyota Prius you can now buy a three-bedroomed house in Detroit with enough left for a pick-up truck (this isn’t a joke – the median house price in Motor City is $7,500).
The ranks of America’s “climate sceptics” have been growing quietly for some months now. And at the weekend a watershed was reached: the usually left-wing
New York Times put the British-born physicist Freeman Dyson on the front of its Sunday magazine. The article inside revealed that Professor Dyson – 85 years old and based in Princeton – not only possesses one of the finest noodles on Planet Earth, but also happens to think that most of what Al Gore and his band of Unmerry Men preach amounts to little more than yuppie self-loathing.
“All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated,” is how Professor Dyson puts it. He adds that while it’s true that human-caused carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the Earth is still going through a relatively cool period in its history, and that most of the evolution of life took place in a warmer era. Professor Dyson is also fond of pointing out that carbon dioxide helps plants to grow – so having too much of the stuff hanging around might not be such a bad thing.
Out in the blogotwittersphere, the Greens can hardly believe that the same media that once helped Mr Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize are now promoting such heresy. To make matters more infuriating,
Professor Dyson isn’t even a conservative: he’s a left-wing, Obama-voting, peace-marching, boho-academic genius who argues that coal-produced electricity has liberated millions in China from poverty, and that “greens are people who’ve never had to worry about grocery bills”." -writes Chris Ayers, the bold is mine -MrB.
http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/04/0...-global-warming
What I think this shows, for all to see, is that science and one's religion is inseperable and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
The man in the street once expected the SCIENTIST to interpret the universe and human life. Now he only asks the scientist to help him live, to diminish his effort and pain. The scientist is becoming more and more the technician and less and less the SAGE. Science no longer exists - it has been replaced by the SCIENCES and this dispersion of knowledge, this lack of a clear image of what is happening on earth, is one cause of today's HUMAN ANGUISH.
http://mpec.sc.mahidol.ac.th/preedeeporn/AUTHORSL.HTM#Lopez
Mahidol Physics Education Centre
And indeed this was all foreseen.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 18 2009, 10:38 AM)
But being able to measure it makes it empirical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
Nowhere in the wikipedia entry you cite does the word "measure" or "measurement" appear. I used my word-finder just to be sure I didn't overlook it.
Empirical observation requires sensory data. Measurement is an abstract process of synthesizing the data into meaningful concepts that makes them comparable based on standardized units.
When you observe sunlight, you don't really observe it directly. What you actually observe is its effect on objects. Empirically the objects themselves have observable properties of luminescence, temperature, etc. even though you know, as a result of synthetic knowledge, that these properties are not inherent in the objects themselves, but are caused by the solar energy of sunlight.
Energy is not observed, it is deduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
Nowhere in the wikipedia entry you cite does the word "measure" or "measurement" appear. I used my word-finder just to be sure I didn't overlook it.
Empirical observation requires sensory data. Measurement is an abstract process of synthesizing the data into meaningful concepts that makes them comparable based on standardized units.
When you observe sunlight, you don't really observe it directly. What you actually observe is its effect on objects. Empirically the objects themselves have observable properties of luminescence, temperature, etc. even though you know, as a result of synthetic knowledge, that these properties are not inherent in the objects themselves, but are caused by the solar energy of sunlight.
Energy is not observed, it is deduced.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 17 2009, 02:04 PM)
Does the story of Jack and the Beanstalk prove that it is possible to kill giants?
I should have known not to use the word, "proves." What I should have said was:
The story of Christ describes the possibility of destroying God on Earth, and the consequences of doing so.
Ironically, atheism ends up having the same effect on people, sooner or later, as the crucifixion did on those who were for it. I'll sum it up: first relief that the troublemaker is gone, then reflection on what he said as not being so terrible, if crazy. Then reflection that it wasn't really crazy at all but contained a lot of value. Then regret that they weren't able to tap into his teachings before he was gone. Then remorse for destroying a benevolent creature. Then asking for forgiveness for having destroyed him. Then seeking salvation from guilt in redemption from self-proclaimed sin. Then a persistent sense of unworthiness of the forgiveness that was proclaimed by him before the crucifixion resulted in his death.
I think the same thing happens to many, if not most atheists, eventually. First they reject God because, from a realistic perspective, theology sounds like fairy-tales. Then they get into deep analysis of myths, with the goal of exposing how silly and foolish they are. Then, they end up starting to understand the metaphors and meanings in the myths, because they've studied them so hard to demonstrate their idiocy. Then they find it interesting because they saw something in the myths that they never were able to learn from any more realistic forms of knowledge. Then they get hungry for more enlightenment of the same kind. Then they end up as bible-crazed preachers standing outside of classrooms on college campuses yelling at students to give up their hell-bound lifestyles.
Don't think you'll end up this way? Intensify your pursuit of atheism and see. I dare you!
I should have known not to use the word, "proves." What I should have said was:
The story of Christ describes the possibility of destroying God on Earth, and the consequences of doing so.
Ironically, atheism ends up having the same effect on people, sooner or later, as the crucifixion did on those who were for it. I'll sum it up: first relief that the troublemaker is gone, then reflection on what he said as not being so terrible, if crazy. Then reflection that it wasn't really crazy at all but contained a lot of value. Then regret that they weren't able to tap into his teachings before he was gone. Then remorse for destroying a benevolent creature. Then asking for forgiveness for having destroyed him. Then seeking salvation from guilt in redemption from self-proclaimed sin. Then a persistent sense of unworthiness of the forgiveness that was proclaimed by him before the crucifixion resulted in his death.
I think the same thing happens to many, if not most atheists, eventually. First they reject God because, from a realistic perspective, theology sounds like fairy-tales. Then they get into deep analysis of myths, with the goal of exposing how silly and foolish they are. Then, they end up starting to understand the metaphors and meanings in the myths, because they've studied them so hard to demonstrate their idiocy. Then they find it interesting because they saw something in the myths that they never were able to learn from any more realistic forms of knowledge. Then they get hungry for more enlightenment of the same kind. Then they end up as bible-crazed preachers standing outside of classrooms on college campuses yelling at students to give up their hell-bound lifestyles.
Don't think you'll end up this way? Intensify your pursuit of atheism and see. I dare you!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 09:49 AM)
Then they find it interesting because they saw something in the myths that they never were able to learn from any more realistic forms of knowledge. Then they get hungry for more enlightenment of the same kind. Then they end up as bible-crazed preachers standing outside of classrooms on college campuses yelling at students to give up their hell-bound lifestyles.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
This is like stating that if Christians seek god too much, they will be caught with a gay prostitute in a hotel room.
(thanks Ted Haggard!)
I know that you just LOVE generalizations, but you should stop and think about what you say.
Last time I read about Lot giving his daughters over to the crowd to be raped, I didn't exactly have any desire to reconvert to Christianity. Sorry to burst your bubble.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
This is like stating that if Christians seek god too much, they will be caught with a gay prostitute in a hotel room.
(thanks Ted Haggard!)
I know that you just LOVE generalizations, but you should stop and think about what you say.
Last time I read about Lot giving his daughters over to the crowd to be raped, I didn't exactly have any desire to reconvert to Christianity. Sorry to burst your bubble.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 03:30 PM)
This is like stating that if Christians seek god too much, they will be caught with a gay prostitute in a hotel room.
(thanks Ted Haggard!)
This is not so far-fetched. If very devoted people respond to temptation and enjoy it, they may end up searching for more and more without repenting and seeking deliverance from temptation and redemption. This could very easily lead to prostitution and worse.
Funny you mention Soddom and Gemmhor. I think these places in the story of Lot end up being the supernovas of sin, that collapse into black holes.
I had to look up the part about Lot offering his daughters as a substitute for the angels. I think that what happened was that people had become so obsessed with sexual temptation and pleasure, that they came to abhor sex for reproduction. So Lot was trying to offer his daughters as an opportunity to trade in sex for pleasure for sex for reproduction. Interestingly, Lot loses his wife to the cities and later ends up being seduced by his daughters because they have no other way to get pregnant. So there seems to be some karmic connection between these events in the story.
(thanks Ted Haggard!)
This is not so far-fetched. If very devoted people respond to temptation and enjoy it, they may end up searching for more and more without repenting and seeking deliverance from temptation and redemption. This could very easily lead to prostitution and worse.
Funny you mention Soddom and Gemmhor. I think these places in the story of Lot end up being the supernovas of sin, that collapse into black holes.
I had to look up the part about Lot offering his daughters as a substitute for the angels. I think that what happened was that people had become so obsessed with sexual temptation and pleasure, that they came to abhor sex for reproduction. So Lot was trying to offer his daughters as an opportunity to trade in sex for pleasure for sex for reproduction. Interestingly, Lot loses his wife to the cities and later ends up being seduced by his daughters because they have no other way to get pregnant. So there seems to be some karmic connection between these events in the story.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 01:02 PM)
I think these places in the story of Lot end up being the supernovas of sin, that collapse into black holes.
HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHHAA
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 11:30 AM)
Last time I read about Lot giving his daughters over to the crowd to be raped, I didn't exactly have any desire to reconvert to Christianity.
I don't think Lot was meant to be an example of one with high moral character.
I don't think Lot was meant to be an example of one with high moral character.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 20 2009, 02:24 PM)
I don't think Lot was meant to be an example of one with high moral character.
That depends on who you ask.
That depends on who you ask.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 03:18 PM)
That depends on who you ask.
That can go for anything.
That can go for anything.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 01:49 PM)
I think the same thing happens to many, if not most atheists, eventually. First they reject God because, from a realistic perspective, theology sounds like fairy-tales. Then they get into deep analysis of myths, with the goal of exposing how silly and foolish they are. Then, they end up starting to understand the metaphors and meanings in the myths, because they've studied them so hard to demonstrate their idiocy. Then they find it interesting because they saw something in the myths that they never were able to learn from any more realistic forms of knowledge. Then they get hungry for more enlightenment of the same kind. Then they end up as bible-crazed preachers standing outside of classrooms on college campuses yelling at students to give up their hell-bound lifestyles.
Don't think you'll end up this way? Intensify your pursuit of atheism and see. I dare you!
Why?
I can accept I don't know.
But I think most real thinkers find Jungian archtypes, not God.
Don't think you'll end up this way? Intensify your pursuit of atheism and see. I dare you!
Why?
I can accept I don't know.
But I think most real thinkers find Jungian archtypes, not God.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 20 2009, 08:50 PM)
But I think most real thinkers find Jungian archtypes, not God.
I think that finding the Jungian archetypes is the same thing as finding God. God is nothing more than faith in God, so if you discover that God is nothing more than the ideas about God that you have inside you as the result of centuries of theological developments - then you have faith that those ideas or "archetype," then you basically have faith in God and proceed from there.
One's own faith in God is as far as a believer ever looks for proof of God. This is what I keep trying to tell people on this forum, who are habitual proof-seekers. Seeking proof of things is fine, and constructive for many forms of knowledge - but God does not respond to proof-seeking but only a commitment of faith.
This means that if you make your faith in God always conditional on discovering proof, then you will never discover God. If you choose to exercise faith in the archetypes of God inside you, then you will. "Seek and you shall find," the expression goes.
I know it's a frustrating concept when you're used to dealing with empirically testable knowledge. I went through that myself for a long time.
It's just when you finally accept that God is an idea and your faith in it, and nothing else, atheism appears silly, because why would you deny the existence of something whose only existence is the archetype inside yourself - when you know for a fact that the archetype exists inside you, because you witness it yourself there.
Atheism is wanting more out of God and theology than there is. It is just spiritual guidance. Nothing more. This doesn't mean it can't have powerful effects on your life experiences. In fact, people often report spiritual experiences that are more intense than their experiences of physical phenomena. It can just be very disappointing to many people to realize that there is no objective materialization of their experience.
It's kind of like that movie with Jodie Foster as an astrophysicist that discovers plans for a machine that transports her to a distant planet, but all any spectator witnesses is the ball she's sitting in falling to the ground. Then half the movie is about her struggle to try to convince others that what she experienced was real, for her at least. Does anyone remember the name of this movie? I forgot it. . . never mind, I remembered: "Contact." It's worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
I think that finding the Jungian archetypes is the same thing as finding God. God is nothing more than faith in God, so if you discover that God is nothing more than the ideas about God that you have inside you as the result of centuries of theological developments - then you have faith that those ideas or "archetype," then you basically have faith in God and proceed from there.
One's own faith in God is as far as a believer ever looks for proof of God. This is what I keep trying to tell people on this forum, who are habitual proof-seekers. Seeking proof of things is fine, and constructive for many forms of knowledge - but God does not respond to proof-seeking but only a commitment of faith.
This means that if you make your faith in God always conditional on discovering proof, then you will never discover God. If you choose to exercise faith in the archetypes of God inside you, then you will. "Seek and you shall find," the expression goes.
I know it's a frustrating concept when you're used to dealing with empirically testable knowledge. I went through that myself for a long time.
It's just when you finally accept that God is an idea and your faith in it, and nothing else, atheism appears silly, because why would you deny the existence of something whose only existence is the archetype inside yourself - when you know for a fact that the archetype exists inside you, because you witness it yourself there.
Atheism is wanting more out of God and theology than there is. It is just spiritual guidance. Nothing more. This doesn't mean it can't have powerful effects on your life experiences. In fact, people often report spiritual experiences that are more intense than their experiences of physical phenomena. It can just be very disappointing to many people to realize that there is no objective materialization of their experience.
It's kind of like that movie with Jodie Foster as an astrophysicist that discovers plans for a machine that transports her to a distant planet, but all any spectator witnesses is the ball she's sitting in falling to the ground. Then half the movie is about her struggle to try to convince others that what she experienced was real, for her at least. Does anyone remember the name of this movie? I forgot it. . . never mind, I remembered: "Contact." It's worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 17 2009, 10:25 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
All alternatives to what I point out have been much more stupid than what's on my list, no doubt. So if you want to pretend I'm wrong, all evidence says you must take the more stupid path.
Physfan
What evidence?
The suggestions that I'm wrong but no superior or even equivalent alternatives with which to back them up.
The suggestions that I'm wrong but no superior or even equivalent alternatives with which to back them up.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 18 2009, 01:46 AM)
you are the only one dense enough not to see how utterly stupid you are acting, and how bereft of logic your position is. Alien gods are just another layer of stupid added to the superstitious non-sense of any gods at all.
Are there no gods anywhere in the universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods in some places but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find that out?
Are there no gods anywhere in the universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods in some places but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find that out?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 11:31 PM)
Are there no gods anywhere in the universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods in some places but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find that out?
There is no evidence for them.
All your "logic" is based on ignorance.
And you make no effort to remove any of your ignorance.
There is no evidence for them.
All your "logic" is based on ignorance.
And you make no effort to remove any of your ignorance.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 01:49 PM)
The story of Christ describes the possibility of destroying God on Earth, and the consequences of doing so.
The potential for salvation?
The potential for salvation?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 03:30 PM)
Last time I read about Lot giving his daughters over to the crowd to be raped, I didn't exactly have any desire to reconvert to Christianity.
Well for one thing that's not necessarily a Christian story, and for another I believe it was to keep a couple of angels from getting fu*ked in their asses so it was for a good cause.
Well for one thing that's not necessarily a Christian story, and for another I believe it was to keep a couple of angels from getting fu*ked in their asses so it was for a good cause.
QUOTE
Well for one thing that's not necessarily a Christian story, and for another I believe it was to keep a couple of angels from getting fu*ked in their asses so it was for a good cause.
Good cause, bullsh1t! Angels wouldn't feel it up the ought but Lot's daughter would. They should have offered to take it up the kyber to save the girls. What sort of xians are they?Physfan
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 05:02 PM)
This is not so far-fetched. If very devoted people respond to temptation and enjoy it
Temptation? Enjoy it? Yuck!!!
. . .
Temptation? Enjoy it? Yuck!!!
. . .
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
Interestingly, Lot loses his wife to the cities
That's not how I remember it. The way I remember it is that he told Lot he was going to destroy the city, and Lot got him to agree that he would spare it if he could find a certain number of respectable people living in it. I remember it being a pretty low number, but there weren't that many anyway so God decided to wipe the place out. He told Lot to take the wife and kids and head for the hills, and be sure not to look back. Lot's wife decided that she would look back, and was turned into a pillar of salt for doing so. And we have supposedly strong atheists today bitching because he doesn't do things like that now. How would they like it if when they demanded proof of his existence God turned their pecker into a pillar of salt? Even if that was the only type of proof he ever provided I imagine it would be enough to satisfy most people.
That's not how I remember it. The way I remember it is that he told Lot he was going to destroy the city, and Lot got him to agree that he would spare it if he could find a certain number of respectable people living in it. I remember it being a pretty low number, but there weren't that many anyway so God decided to wipe the place out. He told Lot to take the wife and kids and head for the hills, and be sure not to look back. Lot's wife decided that she would look back, and was turned into a pillar of salt for doing so.
And we have supposedly strong atheists today bitching because he doesn't do things like that now. How would they like it if when they demanded proof of his existence God turned their pecker into a pillar of salt? Even if that was the only type of proof he ever provided I imagine it would be enough to satisfy most people.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 11:44 PM)
And we have supposedly strong atheists today bitching because he doesn't do things like that now.
What makes you think he did it then?
How about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, do you believe that one too?
What makes you think he did it then?
How about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, do you believe that one too?
QUOTE (Physfan+Sep 20 2009, 07:42 PM)
Good cause, bullsh1t! Angels wouldn't feel it up the ought but Lot's daughter would. They should have offered to take it up the kyber to save the girls. What sort of xians are they?
Physfan
The angels did not allow the crowd to take the girls. The angels blinded the crowd.
Physfan
The angels did not allow the crowd to take the girls. The angels blinded the crowd.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 11:34 PM)
The potential for salvation?
Ironically, yes, but the trick is to realize the destruction early enough to discover salvation before you've destroyed more and therefore need more salvation from the guilt. In other words, I don't like telling people to go as far down the destructive path as possible to discover God, but if you take that road you will discover "Him" there eventually. This probably sounds cryptic to you, doesn't it?
Ironically, yes, but the trick is to realize the destruction early enough to discover salvation before you've destroyed more and therefore need more salvation from the guilt. In other words, I don't like telling people to go as far down the destructive path as possible to discover God, but if you take that road you will discover "Him" there eventually. This probably sounds cryptic to you, doesn't it?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 12:39 AM)
Ironically, yes, but the trick is to realize the destruction early enough to discover salvation before you've destroyed more and therefore need more salvation from the guilt. In other words, I don't like telling people to go as far down the destructive path as possible to discover God, but if you take that road you will discover "Him" there eventually. This probably sounds cryptic to you, doesn't it?
Especially from someone more Athiest than I am.
At least you have said that you believe God is story and legend and myth.
Especially from someone more Athiest than I am.
At least you have said that you believe God is story and legend and myth.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 21 2009, 12:59 AM)
Especially from someone more Athiest than I am.
At least you have said that you believe God is story and legend and myth.
Are you now going to try the "I believe in God more than you do" superiority/domination game?
I'll give you a hint: God would never want people to lead people away from Him by trying to convince them that they are not faithful enough to deserve His grace.
You going into competition with other believers, calling them atheists, is your own personal egoism, unless you have some kind of evangelical mission you are trying to achieve (poorly I would add).
God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality.
Don't mess around with people's faith in God. It is the worst temptation to evil there is - and you don't want to tease out people's evil reactions against you, do you?
At least you have said that you believe God is story and legend and myth.
Are you now going to try the "I believe in God more than you do" superiority/domination game?
I'll give you a hint: God would never want people to lead people away from Him by trying to convince them that they are not faithful enough to deserve His grace.
You going into competition with other believers, calling them atheists, is your own personal egoism, unless you have some kind of evangelical mission you are trying to achieve (poorly I would add).
God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality.
Don't mess around with people's faith in God. It is the worst temptation to evil there is - and you don't want to tease out people's evil reactions against you, do you?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 20 2009, 09:10 PM)
I'll give you a hint: God would never want people to lead people away from Him by trying to convince them that they are not faithful enough to deserve His grace.
Try telling that to newguy, or any of those like him.
How does god exist in the heart and mind of someone who was raised with zero mentions of god?
How does god exist in the heart and mind of someone who was raised with zero mentions of god?
Don't mess around with people's faith in God. It is the worst temptation to evil there is - and you don't want to tease out people's evil reactions against you, do you?
Don't mess around with people's lack of faith in god. Deal?
Physfan
Mission "Don't get f*cked up the *ss": FAILED.
Try telling that to newguy, or any of those like him.
QUOTE
God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality.
How does god exist in the heart and mind of someone who was raised with zero mentions of god?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality. |
How does god exist in the heart and mind of someone who was raised with zero mentions of god?
Don't mess around with people's faith in God. It is the worst temptation to evil there is - and you don't want to tease out people's evil reactions against you, do you?
Don't mess around with people's lack of faith in god. Deal?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 01:10 AM)
God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality.
Read "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus".
I'm too lazy to find a copy online right now.
You deny God exists, I don't I merely say that there is no evidence.
You put God in the same catagory as Santa Claus.
You want it both ways.
You are doing the same thing Nopeda is. Taking the concept of God and changing the definition into something you can believe in.
You are not even trying to say he's the same as King Arthur, i.e. that is reality behind the legends.
Read "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus".
I'm too lazy to find a copy online right now.
You deny God exists, I don't I merely say that there is no evidence.
You put God in the same catagory as Santa Claus.
You want it both ways.
You are doing the same thing Nopeda is. Taking the concept of God and changing the definition into something you can believe in.
You are not even trying to say he's the same as King Arthur, i.e. that is reality behind the legends.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 01:21 AM)
Don't mess around with people's lack of faith in god. Deal?
What do mean? Like tempting people to believe? Or telling atheists that they do actually experience faith, but in different ways?
Now you have put me at unease, because I don't know if I have the same cruel effect by the way I approach and discuss atheism.
From my perspective, I am pretty neutral in explaining the way I understand theology, divinity, atheism, etc. and I don't try to manipulate anyone into believing in God. I just explain how it's possible and say that it's a choice open to everyone.
I say the same thing about atheism, only I explain how I see atheism evolving into pro-theism based on logic and my own experiences as a post-atheist.
Have I "messed around with people's lack of faith in god" by discussing it as I have?
What do mean? Like tempting people to believe? Or telling atheists that they do actually experience faith, but in different ways?
Now you have put me at unease, because I don't know if I have the same cruel effect by the way I approach and discuss atheism.
From my perspective, I am pretty neutral in explaining the way I understand theology, divinity, atheism, etc. and I don't try to manipulate anyone into believing in God. I just explain how it's possible and say that it's a choice open to everyone.
I say the same thing about atheism, only I explain how I see atheism evolving into pro-theism based on logic and my own experiences as a post-atheist.
Have I "messed around with people's lack of faith in god" by discussing it as I have?
QUOTE
God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality.
Hearts and minds only? Not very omniscient, is it?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| God exists as legend and myth, but He also exists in human hearts and minds. As such He exists as a spiritual reality. |
Hearts and minds only? Not very omniscient, is it?
Or telling atheists that they do actually experience faith, but in different ways?
Or telling atheists that they do actually experience faith, but in different ways?
There are so many strawmen around this forum that, if anyone thows a match, there will be one hell of a fire.
Physfan
QUOTE
The angels did not allow the crowd to take the girls. The angels blinded the crowd.
Lot should not have offered his daughters and the angels should have offered themselves. Notwithstanding, the story is sick and is indicative of the bible generally. How anyone can find anything in this story is incomprehensible?Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Sep 20 2009, 11:10 PM)
Lot should not have offered his daughters and the angels should have offered themselves.
Yes, I agree that Lot should not have offered his daughters but why should the angels have offered themselves.
Yes, I agree that Lot should not have offered his daughters but why should the angels have offered themselves.
QUOTE
Yes, I agree that Lot should not have offered his daughters but why should the angels have offered themselves.
Angels can't be hurt even up the ought! (At least according to your mythology.)Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Sep 21 2009, 12:05 AM)
Angels can't be hurt even up the ought! (At least according to your mythology.)
Physfan
Well according to "my mythology" that would stray from their mission.
Physfan
Well according to "my mythology" that would stray from their mission.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 21 2009, 04:27 AM)
Well according to "my mythology" that would stray from their mission.
Mission "Don't get f*cked up the *ss": FAILED.
Mission "Don't get f*cked up the *ss": FAILED.
QUOTE
Well according to "my mythology" that would stray from their mission.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well according to "my mythology" that would stray from their mission. |
Mission "Don't get f*cked up the *ss": FAILED.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 02:24 AM)
What do mean? Like tempting people to believe? Or telling atheists that they do actually experience faith, but in different ways?
Now you have put me at unease, because I don't know if I have the same cruel effect by the way I approach and discuss atheism.
From my perspective, I am pretty neutral in explaining the way I understand theology, divinity, atheism, etc. and I don't try to manipulate anyone into believing in God. I just explain how it's possible and say that it's a choice open to everyone.
I say the same thing about atheism, only I explain how I see atheism evolving into pro-theism based on logic and my own experiences as a post-atheist.
Have I "messed around with people's lack of faith in god" by discussing it as I have?
Here is a page with the editorial.
http://beebo.org/smackerels/yes-virginia.html
You are saying that God is no more real than Santa Claus.
You are not messing with Atheists, you are messing with Theists.
Your description of God sure sounds like Mr. Church's description of Santa Claus.
Now you have put me at unease, because I don't know if I have the same cruel effect by the way I approach and discuss atheism.
From my perspective, I am pretty neutral in explaining the way I understand theology, divinity, atheism, etc. and I don't try to manipulate anyone into believing in God. I just explain how it's possible and say that it's a choice open to everyone.
I say the same thing about atheism, only I explain how I see atheism evolving into pro-theism based on logic and my own experiences as a post-atheist.
Have I "messed around with people's lack of faith in god" by discussing it as I have?
Here is a page with the editorial.
http://beebo.org/smackerels/yes-virginia.html
You are saying that God is no more real than Santa Claus.
You are not messing with Atheists, you are messing with Theists.
Your description of God sure sounds like Mr. Church's description of Santa Claus.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 21 2009, 03:18 AM)
Yes, I agree that Lot should not have offered his daughters but why should the angels have offered themselves.
Think about this in a realistic way: imagine your daughter has come of dating age. She brings home some punk-looking guy you suspect is up to no good, and possibly has some serious problems with staying away from the dark side at all. Do you forbid her from dating him, knowing that he will probably fall farther into evil and hurt someone else, or do you let your daughter date him, with the faith that she will get him to clean up his act. Lot's story is about a father who has faith in his daughter to exorcise the demons of the guy she dates.
If you still think this sounds like a bad idea, ask yourself the gender-reversed question: if it was your son instead of your daughter who brought home a seductive temptress you thought might lure him into more trouble with drugs, stealing, etc. would you forbid him from dating her or just tell him to watch out for her and make sure he stays in control of the situation? Probably you would have faith in him to stay in control.
If you would trust neither your son or your daughter in such a situation, you lack faith in them, no?
Think about this in a realistic way: imagine your daughter has come of dating age. She brings home some punk-looking guy you suspect is up to no good, and possibly has some serious problems with staying away from the dark side at all. Do you forbid her from dating him, knowing that he will probably fall farther into evil and hurt someone else, or do you let your daughter date him, with the faith that she will get him to clean up his act. Lot's story is about a father who has faith in his daughter to exorcise the demons of the guy she dates.
If you still think this sounds like a bad idea, ask yourself the gender-reversed question: if it was your son instead of your daughter who brought home a seductive temptress you thought might lure him into more trouble with drugs, stealing, etc. would you forbid him from dating her or just tell him to watch out for her and make sure he stays in control of the situation? Probably you would have faith in him to stay in control.
If you would trust neither your son or your daughter in such a situation, you lack faith in them, no?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 01:21 AM)
Don't mess around with people's lack of faith in god. Deal?
What could you possibly have to lose? Damnation?
In a way it's not funny at all
. If God does exist then you would be screwing another being out of an eternity of life of positive value if you could persuade them to reject the possibility of his existence. In contrast to that, they would NOT be screwing you out of a thing if they could persuade you to consider the possibility that he might exist whether he does or not.
What could you possibly have to lose? Damnation?
In a way it's not funny at all
. If God does exist then you would be screwing another being out of an eternity of life of positive value if you could persuade them to reject the possibility of his existence. In contrast to that, they would NOT be screwing you out of a thing if they could persuade you to consider the possibility that he might exist whether he does or not.
QUOTE (Physfan+Sep 20 2009, 11:42 PM)
Good cause, bullsh1t! Angels wouldn't feel it up the ought but Lot's daughter would. They should have offered to take it up the kyber to save the girls. What sort of xians are they?
Physfan
Maybe Lot was aware that his girls had been around the block a few times already, so it didn't really matter? But even if they were still virgins it seems like the overall lesser evil would be to deflower them rather than the angels' asses, assuming their asses were virgin.
There were no Christians in existence yet at the time, btw.
Physfan
Maybe Lot was aware that his girls had been around the block a few times already, so it didn't really matter? But even if they were still virgins it seems like the overall lesser evil would be to deflower them rather than the angels' asses, assuming their asses were virgin.
There were no Christians in existence yet at the time, btw.
All you people's professions and/or examples of "faith" are nothing more than plain old everyday "hope for" and/or "wish for".
You've defined a word for a concept that isn't real. It's a pretend thing. You're just "hoping".
You've defined a word for a concept that isn't real. It's a pretend thing. You're just "hoping".
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 12:39 AM)
Ironically, yes, but the trick is to realize the destruction early enough to discover salvation before you've destroyed more and therefore need more salvation from the guilt. In other words, I don't like telling people to go as far down the destructive path as possible to discover God, but if you take that road you will discover "Him" there eventually. This probably sounds cryptic to you, doesn't it?
It sounds like the way it is, cryptic or not. If God did exist would things be as they are? Would groups like re-hab programs be likely to seek support from a higher power? Yes. Do they? Yes... Would many/most human aid organizations be likely to be associated with God in some ways? Yes. Are they? Yes...
It sounds like the way it is, cryptic or not. If God did exist would things be as they are? Would groups like re-hab programs be likely to seek support from a higher power? Yes. Do they? Yes... Would many/most human aid organizations be likely to be associated with God in some ways? Yes. Are they? Yes...
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What could you possibly have to lose? Damnation?
Damnation is a good scare tactic. Apparently it works very well...sucker.
Damnation is a good scare tactic. Apparently it works very well...sucker.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
In a way it's not funny at all mellow.gif . If God does exist then you would be screwing another being out of an eternity of life of positive value if you could persuade them to reject the possibility of his existence.
what positive value do you gain which an atheist cannot gain?
what positive value do you gain which an atheist cannot gain?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
In contrast to that, they would NOT be screwing you out of a thing if they could persuade you to consider the possibility that he might exist whether he does or not.
Many people have lost everything to those who convinced them of their God.
Many people have lost everything to those who convinced them of their God.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 21 2009, 03:52 PM)
It sounds like the way it is, cryptic or not. If God did exist would things be as they are? Would groups like re-hab programs be likely to seek support from a higher power? Yes. Do they? Yes... Would many/most human aid organizations be likely to be associated with God in some ways? Yes. Are they? Yes...
If God did not exist would things be as they are? Would groups like re-hab programs be likely to seek support from a higher power? Yes. Do they? Yes... Would many/most human aid organizations be likely to be associated with God in some ways? Yes. Are they? Yes...
If God did not exist would things be as they are? Would groups like re-hab programs be likely to seek support from a higher power? Yes. Do they? Yes... Would many/most human aid organizations be likely to be associated with God in some ways? Yes. Are they? Yes...
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 21 2009, 04:11 PM)
what positive value do you gain which an atheist cannot gain?
Atheists with strong ethics and/or morality are really no different than believers. Some believers sometimes end up falling into more temptation than non-believers, so you can't even generalize that people of faith are better people, either on average or as a rule.
The only positive value gained by the exercise of faith is that the sense of questioning what God is and whether he/she/it exists, etc. is replaced with a sense of fulfillment in a truth that is known through faith instead of proof. It's just a resolution of the conundrum that there is no proof of God. It is accepting that if you really want to "know" God, you have to base your knowledge on faith in your philosophies and beliefs. You can go on searching for clarification about questions and uncertainties regarding ethical decisions, making sense of inexplicable phenomena, etc. - but you end up doing this from a perspective grounded in your faith-based knowledge.
For example, why would a physicist ever think that light is good and darkness is not? An objective one wouldn't, because these are arbitrary values. What about someone who accepts the authority of the bible without reflection? Yes, they would because the bible says that God created light and decided it was good, but is that a good enough reason? I don't think so. I think faith involves reflecting on what it means for light to be good, and what the metaphorical significance of it is.
So, for example, if you reason metaphorically that light has something to do with truth, then you can reflect on truth being good because light is good. The bible implies this, but you have to reflect and decide for yourself whether you want to have faith in the "truth ethic."
Now, if you are atheist, does that automatically mean you're going to deny that light and truth have some relation to each other, OR are you necessarily going to hold a "deceit ethic" instead of a truth ethic, believing that the more you can conceal, the more power you can gain, and the better off you are? Not necessarily, but you might. However, someone who reads the bible and believes in goodness of light is probably not going to have such a "deceit ethic," although they might succumb to the temptation to seek power through deceit, out of a weakness in their faith.
Theoretically, though, if a person has fallen to the temptation of darkness and deceit and KNOWS that they have fallen into evil-doing, they are more likely to seek the strength to resist continuing down this path. Someone who thinks of deceit as simply the best policy to achieve goals, and feels there's nothing wrong with it, is a different story.
In response to another post, FAITH is more than "hoping for" or "wishing for" something. It is the active belief in something, despite doubt. When doubt is an inevitable consequence of the facts, such as the total lack of proof for God's existence, faith is the ONLY thing that can overcome it. You may believe that overcoming doubt is stupid, but it has positive spiritual consequences, such as allowing you to act pro-actively instead of waiting on proof as a pre-condition for action.
Does this inject any clarity or the possibility of rational thought into this discussion, no matter which side you take? I hope so, because that's my intent.
Atheists with strong ethics and/or morality are really no different than believers. Some believers sometimes end up falling into more temptation than non-believers, so you can't even generalize that people of faith are better people, either on average or as a rule.
The only positive value gained by the exercise of faith is that the sense of questioning what God is and whether he/she/it exists, etc. is replaced with a sense of fulfillment in a truth that is known through faith instead of proof. It's just a resolution of the conundrum that there is no proof of God. It is accepting that if you really want to "know" God, you have to base your knowledge on faith in your philosophies and beliefs. You can go on searching for clarification about questions and uncertainties regarding ethical decisions, making sense of inexplicable phenomena, etc. - but you end up doing this from a perspective grounded in your faith-based knowledge.
For example, why would a physicist ever think that light is good and darkness is not? An objective one wouldn't, because these are arbitrary values. What about someone who accepts the authority of the bible without reflection? Yes, they would because the bible says that God created light and decided it was good, but is that a good enough reason? I don't think so. I think faith involves reflecting on what it means for light to be good, and what the metaphorical significance of it is.
So, for example, if you reason metaphorically that light has something to do with truth, then you can reflect on truth being good because light is good. The bible implies this, but you have to reflect and decide for yourself whether you want to have faith in the "truth ethic."
Now, if you are atheist, does that automatically mean you're going to deny that light and truth have some relation to each other, OR are you necessarily going to hold a "deceit ethic" instead of a truth ethic, believing that the more you can conceal, the more power you can gain, and the better off you are? Not necessarily, but you might. However, someone who reads the bible and believes in goodness of light is probably not going to have such a "deceit ethic," although they might succumb to the temptation to seek power through deceit, out of a weakness in their faith.
Theoretically, though, if a person has fallen to the temptation of darkness and deceit and KNOWS that they have fallen into evil-doing, they are more likely to seek the strength to resist continuing down this path. Someone who thinks of deceit as simply the best policy to achieve goals, and feels there's nothing wrong with it, is a different story.
In response to another post, FAITH is more than "hoping for" or "wishing for" something. It is the active belief in something, despite doubt. When doubt is an inevitable consequence of the facts, such as the total lack of proof for God's existence, faith is the ONLY thing that can overcome it. You may believe that overcoming doubt is stupid, but it has positive spiritual consequences, such as allowing you to act pro-actively instead of waiting on proof as a pre-condition for action.
Does this inject any clarity or the possibility of rational thought into this discussion, no matter which side you take? I hope so, because that's my intent.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
The only positive value gained by the exercise of faith is that the sense of questioning what God is and whether he/she/it exists, etc. is replaced with a sense of fulfillment in a truth that is known through faith instead of proof.
It is not a sense of fulfillment in a truth, but a misplaced faith or self delusion. It can be harmful.
It is not a sense of fulfillment in a truth, but a misplaced faith or self delusion. It can be harmful.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 05:02 PM)
The only positive value gained by the exercise of faith is that the sense of questioning what God is and whether he/she/it exists, etc. is replaced with a sense of fulfillment in a truth that is known through faith instead of proof.
But with faith it almost always not a "truth".
Is Santa Claus a "truth"?
If not then any arguement that can be used to "prove" him is not valid.
But with faith it almost always not a "truth".
Is Santa Claus a "truth"?
If not then any arguement that can be used to "prove" him is not valid.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 22 2009, 11:42 AM)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
The only positive value gained by the exercise of faith is that the sense of questioning what God is and whether he/she/it exists, etc. is replaced with a sense of fulfillment in a truth that is known through faith instead of proof.
It is not a sense of fulfillment in a truth, but a misplaced faith or self delusion. It can be harmful.
You're still defining truth as something that is dependent on proof. Faith is about truths that are not dependent on proof. If you think that believing in things that aren't proven truths is harmful, then you wouldn't like science because science brackets every truth as tentative until it is disproven. Science never establishes positive proof/truth. It only affords the potential of perpetual skepticism.
The "leap of faith" that it takes to assume positive proof of some theory or fact has been reached is just that, a leap of faith. Please don't get into the endless discussion about some faith being better grounded than others. You can base your grounds on whatever you want. It's when you close off the possibility of skepticism or questioning that you exit the possibility of science.
If faith is misplaced or delusional, it may in fact be harmful, but the burden of proof would be on the person seeking to intervene. Of course, there is the possibility of having such strong faith in the harmfulness of something that people feel the need to intervene without conclusive proof (e.g. invading Iraq on faith of weapons developments), but you have to be prepared for the possibility that the actions you undertake will have done more damage than good. Imagine, for example, using electric heart-resuscitation on someone whose heart had not stopped. If you stop their heart by shocking them to restart their heart, you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your intervention.
It is not a sense of fulfillment in a truth, but a misplaced faith or self delusion. It can be harmful.
You're still defining truth as something that is dependent on proof. Faith is about truths that are not dependent on proof. If you think that believing in things that aren't proven truths is harmful, then you wouldn't like science because science brackets every truth as tentative until it is disproven. Science never establishes positive proof/truth. It only affords the potential of perpetual skepticism.
The "leap of faith" that it takes to assume positive proof of some theory or fact has been reached is just that, a leap of faith. Please don't get into the endless discussion about some faith being better grounded than others. You can base your grounds on whatever you want. It's when you close off the possibility of skepticism or questioning that you exit the possibility of science.
If faith is misplaced or delusional, it may in fact be harmful, but the burden of proof would be on the person seeking to intervene. Of course, there is the possibility of having such strong faith in the harmfulness of something that people feel the need to intervene without conclusive proof (e.g. invading Iraq on faith of weapons developments), but you have to be prepared for the possibility that the actions you undertake will have done more damage than good. Imagine, for example, using electric heart-resuscitation on someone whose heart had not stopped. If you stop their heart by shocking them to restart their heart, you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your intervention.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 22 2009, 08:39 PM)
You're still defining truth as something that is dependent on proof.
How about defining it as something independent of the person believing it?
And faith is believing something you have no reason to believe.
Instead of simply suspending judgement.
How about defining it as something independent of the person believing it?
And faith is believing something you have no reason to believe.
Instead of simply suspending judgement.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 22 2009, 08:49 PM)
How about defining it as something independent of the person believing it?
And faith is believing something you have no reason to believe.
Instead of simply suspending judgement.
Faith can be defined as exactly that: a belief dependent on the will of the person believing it.
This is correct, except for people often times have various reasons for believing or having faith in something.
Faith can have good and bad consequences. The belief in God, I think, has a lot to do with having faith in faith as something with the possibility of producing good instead of bad.
People get into situations where they recognize that they have to make decisions and act, despite the fact that they have valid reason to suspend judgement until further evidence is found. So, instead of refusing to act at all, they go ahead an act "in good faith" of their best guess. They could remain suspended in indecision, but instead they choose to take a "leap of faith."
The results of a leap of faith are never guaranteed, or else it wouldn't be a leap of faith. Still, people do it sometimes, and the wisest and most honest of them don't try to convince themselves or others that their actions were based on 100% certainty. They admit they are taking a leap of faith and that they could end up being wrong. They often have well-grounded reasons for doing so instead of remaining indefinitely in suspension of judgement.
Does that explain it?
And faith is believing something you have no reason to believe.
Instead of simply suspending judgement.
Faith can be defined as exactly that: a belief dependent on the will of the person believing it.
QUOTE
And faith is believing something you have no reason to believe.
Instead of simply suspending judgement.
Instead of simply suspending judgement.
This is correct, except for people often times have various reasons for believing or having faith in something.
Faith can have good and bad consequences. The belief in God, I think, has a lot to do with having faith in faith as something with the possibility of producing good instead of bad.
People get into situations where they recognize that they have to make decisions and act, despite the fact that they have valid reason to suspend judgement until further evidence is found. So, instead of refusing to act at all, they go ahead an act "in good faith" of their best guess. They could remain suspended in indecision, but instead they choose to take a "leap of faith."
The results of a leap of faith are never guaranteed, or else it wouldn't be a leap of faith. Still, people do it sometimes, and the wisest and most honest of them don't try to convince themselves or others that their actions were based on 100% certainty. They admit they are taking a leap of faith and that they could end up being wrong. They often have well-grounded reasons for doing so instead of remaining indefinitely in suspension of judgement.
Does that explain it?
You godbots just redefine "faith" whenever it suits your fancies or makes you feel better about yourselves. You're not fooling anyone. Faith is belief that gives no heed to evidence.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 22 2009, 09:06 PM)
Faith can be defined as exactly that: a belief dependent on the will of the person believing it.
Does that explain it?
I meant define "truth" as being independent of people.
And yes that does explain it. Faith is inherently evil. It stops you from going to being wrong to being right.
Did you respond to me about your description of God being liike the description of Santa Claus in "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?
Are you saying that God is as real as Santa Claus?
Does that explain it?
I meant define "truth" as being independent of people.
And yes that does explain it. Faith is inherently evil. It stops you from going to being wrong to being right.
Did you respond to me about your description of God being liike the description of Santa Claus in "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?
Are you saying that God is as real as Santa Claus?
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 22 2009, 10:39 PM)
I meant define "truth" as being independent of people.
And yes that does explain it. Faith is inherently evil. It stops you from going to being wrong to being right.
Did you respond to me about your description of God being liike the description of Santa Claus in "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?
Are you saying that God is as real as Santa Claus?
Faith is dependent on people. It cannot occur independently of people - nor can it occur independently of people with free will. No one can exercise faith without the will to doubt. Actually, someone incapable of doubting has ONLY faith, but they lack the capacity to exercise faith as a choice. See what I mean?
Nothing is inherently evil, including faith. Faith can result in evil though, for example, when you exercise misguided faith. Say, for example, that an angel of satan appears to you in a vision as your mother and tells that if you truly love her you should prove it by jumping out of an airplane. If you have faith that an angel of God has appeared to you as your mother and is guiding you righteously, you will end up killing yourself as a result of psychotic self-deception. But a similar vision could also influence you to call your sister to wish her happy birthday, which would be an example of faith leading to good actions instead of evil ones.
God is more real than Santa Claus, from a faith perspective, because I don't have faith in Santa Clause, but I do in God. Actually, that's not true. I do have faith in Santa Claus as a spirit that will inspire me to give my child toys in december. I don't have to think that there is a living-breathing body that lives at the North Pole and flies around in a sleigh to believe in the spirit and have faith in its power to inspire people to action.
Are you starting to see the difference between the existence of spiritual things and material things? I think that you do, but you are just unsatisfied with the idea that non-material things exist. You want to live in a universe where only physical/material things are perceived and everything else is attributed to them or denied.
And yes that does explain it. Faith is inherently evil. It stops you from going to being wrong to being right.
Did you respond to me about your description of God being liike the description of Santa Claus in "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"?
Are you saying that God is as real as Santa Claus?
Faith is dependent on people. It cannot occur independently of people - nor can it occur independently of people with free will. No one can exercise faith without the will to doubt. Actually, someone incapable of doubting has ONLY faith, but they lack the capacity to exercise faith as a choice. See what I mean?
Nothing is inherently evil, including faith. Faith can result in evil though, for example, when you exercise misguided faith. Say, for example, that an angel of satan appears to you in a vision as your mother and tells that if you truly love her you should prove it by jumping out of an airplane. If you have faith that an angel of God has appeared to you as your mother and is guiding you righteously, you will end up killing yourself as a result of psychotic self-deception. But a similar vision could also influence you to call your sister to wish her happy birthday, which would be an example of faith leading to good actions instead of evil ones.
God is more real than Santa Claus, from a faith perspective, because I don't have faith in Santa Clause, but I do in God. Actually, that's not true. I do have faith in Santa Claus as a spirit that will inspire me to give my child toys in december. I don't have to think that there is a living-breathing body that lives at the North Pole and flies around in a sleigh to believe in the spirit and have faith in its power to inspire people to action.
Are you starting to see the difference between the existence of spiritual things and material things? I think that you do, but you are just unsatisfied with the idea that non-material things exist. You want to live in a universe where only physical/material things are perceived and everything else is attributed to them or denied.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 22 2009, 09:18 PM)
God is more real than Santa Claus, from a faith perspective, because I don't have faith in Santa Clause, but I do in God.
WOW, you completely FAIL at objectivity. Do you really have no ability to see outside of your own opinions and circumstances? Substitute Santa Claus with Zeus or Thor and the point remains the same.
You have yet to mention ONE thing that cannot be explained in a material way.
By definition, non-material things DO NOT EXIST.
We have all of ZERO examples of something that exists and is also immaterial.
WOW, you completely FAIL at objectivity. Do you really have no ability to see outside of your own opinions and circumstances? Substitute Santa Claus with Zeus or Thor and the point remains the same.
QUOTE
I think that you do, but you are just unsatisfied with the idea that non-material things exist. You want to live in a universe where only physical/material things are perceived and everything else is attributed to them or denied.
You have yet to mention ONE thing that cannot be explained in a material way.
By definition, non-material things DO NOT EXIST.
We have all of ZERO examples of something that exists and is also immaterial.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 23 2009, 01:18 AM)
God is more real than Santa Claus, from a faith perspective, because I don't have faith in Santa Clause, but I do in God. Actually, that's not true. I do have faith in Santa Claus as a spirit that will inspire me to give my child toys in december. I don't have to think that there is a living-breathing body that lives at the North Pole and flies around in a sleigh to believe in the spirit and have faith in its power to inspire people to action.
Why do you talk about God and Santa Claus the same way then?
How is God more real than Santa Claus?
And you keep avoiding truth being independant of the individual.
And I've long thought faith was due to a lack of ability.
Why do you talk about God and Santa Claus the same way then?
How is God more real than Santa Claus?
And you keep avoiding truth being independant of the individual.
And I've long thought faith was due to a lack of ability.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 23 2009, 03:50 AM)
WOW, you completely FAIL at objectivity. Do you really have no ability to see outside of your own opinions and circumstances? Substitute Santa Claus with Zeus or Thor and the point remains the same.
You have yet to mention ONE thing that cannot be explained in a material way.
By definition, non-material things DO NOT EXIST.
We have all of ZERO examples of something that exists and is also immaterial.
Everything non-material can be explained in terms of something material. Everything material can be explained in terms of non-materiality. They are independent theoretical frameworks with limitless explanatory potential.
However, you can make arguments that one framework is less useful for a particular question than another one. For example, on another thread someone used the "if a tree fall in the forest and no one hears it then it doesn't make a sound" argument to explain how light travels between particles. This does not satisfy me, because when I am asking questions about light I am doing it in the cognitive framework of materialist physics, not spiritual-constructionism.
Still, you could also say that doing the reverse is just as silly. Investigating the existence of God, Santa Claus, Zeus, or whatever other mythological identity using physics is as useful as trying to navigate your desktop by doing micro-surgery on your RAM. The cursor that is flashing before each letter I type certainly exists somewhere in my RAM chips. With a good microscope I could find some miniscule switch turning on and off - actually I probably couldn't because it is probably a complex program that includes time intervals for how long it stays on and how long it disappears in the blinking. Regardless, the point is that if I want to make it stop blinking, I can better click a point outside the text window, instead of taking apart my RAM.
Do the desktop icons exist or not? Do the words on the screen exist or not? Do thoughts exist? Feelings? Ideas? Memories? Beliefs? Information? Or are all these things just cognitive illusions produced by other material/physical processes that are the true reality?
The answer is that they do exist, but they are not physical, objective realities the same way that matter is. They do not have mass. Their reality-status is dependent on pattern-recognition. They do not exist independently of human cognition. From the perspective of a human observer living inside a body, nothing can.
So, yes (I have faith that) the tree makes a sound when it falls without anyone to hear it but, no, I am not able to assert this without a leap of faith - because I did not witness it directly or even empirically.
You have yet to mention ONE thing that cannot be explained in a material way.
By definition, non-material things DO NOT EXIST.
We have all of ZERO examples of something that exists and is also immaterial.
Everything non-material can be explained in terms of something material. Everything material can be explained in terms of non-materiality. They are independent theoretical frameworks with limitless explanatory potential.
However, you can make arguments that one framework is less useful for a particular question than another one. For example, on another thread someone used the "if a tree fall in the forest and no one hears it then it doesn't make a sound" argument to explain how light travels between particles. This does not satisfy me, because when I am asking questions about light I am doing it in the cognitive framework of materialist physics, not spiritual-constructionism.
Still, you could also say that doing the reverse is just as silly. Investigating the existence of God, Santa Claus, Zeus, or whatever other mythological identity using physics is as useful as trying to navigate your desktop by doing micro-surgery on your RAM. The cursor that is flashing before each letter I type certainly exists somewhere in my RAM chips. With a good microscope I could find some miniscule switch turning on and off - actually I probably couldn't because it is probably a complex program that includes time intervals for how long it stays on and how long it disappears in the blinking. Regardless, the point is that if I want to make it stop blinking, I can better click a point outside the text window, instead of taking apart my RAM.
Do the desktop icons exist or not? Do the words on the screen exist or not? Do thoughts exist? Feelings? Ideas? Memories? Beliefs? Information? Or are all these things just cognitive illusions produced by other material/physical processes that are the true reality?
The answer is that they do exist, but they are not physical, objective realities the same way that matter is. They do not have mass. Their reality-status is dependent on pattern-recognition. They do not exist independently of human cognition. From the perspective of a human observer living inside a body, nothing can.
So, yes (I have faith that) the tree makes a sound when it falls without anyone to hear it but, no, I am not able to assert this without a leap of faith - because I did not witness it directly or even empirically.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 23 2009, 10:26 AM)
Everything non-material can be explained in terms of something material. Everything material can be explained in terms of non-materiality. They are independent theoretical frameworks with limitless explanatory potential.
Replace the word "non-material" with "imaginary" and you'll have a better understanding about what you're talking about.
Sounds like you completely missed the point of that analogy.
Sounds like you completely missed the point of that analogy.
Still, you could also say that doing the reverse is just as silly. Investigating the existence of God, Santa Claus, Zeus, or whatever other mythological identity using physics is as useful as trying to navigate your desktop by doing micro-surgery on your RAM. The cursor that is flashing before each letter I type certainly exists somewhere in my RAM chips. With a good microscope I could find some miniscule switch turning on and off - actually I probably couldn't because it is probably a complex program that includes time intervals for how long it stays on and how long it disappears in the blinking. Regardless, the point is that if I want to make it stop blinking, I can better click a point outside the text window, instead of taking apart my RAM.
Massive analogy fail. Bits stored in microprocessor memory are certainly real. They can be measured and modified. They are simply switched electrical circuits.
Objects in computer memory do indeed exist physically. Mass has nothing to do with it. Physical can mean many things, but in this context, it means "existing in a way that can be observed."
I'm not sure that even you know what you're trying to say here.
Replace the word "non-material" with "imaginary" and you'll have a better understanding about what you're talking about.
QUOTE
For example, on another thread someone used the "if a tree fall in the forest and no one hears it then it doesn't make a sound" argument to explain how light travels between particles.
Sounds like you completely missed the point of that analogy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For example, on another thread someone used the "if a tree fall in the forest and no one hears it then it doesn't make a sound" argument to explain how light travels between particles. |
Sounds like you completely missed the point of that analogy.
Still, you could also say that doing the reverse is just as silly. Investigating the existence of God, Santa Claus, Zeus, or whatever other mythological identity using physics is as useful as trying to navigate your desktop by doing micro-surgery on your RAM. The cursor that is flashing before each letter I type certainly exists somewhere in my RAM chips. With a good microscope I could find some miniscule switch turning on and off - actually I probably couldn't because it is probably a complex program that includes time intervals for how long it stays on and how long it disappears in the blinking. Regardless, the point is that if I want to make it stop blinking, I can better click a point outside the text window, instead of taking apart my RAM.
Massive analogy fail. Bits stored in microprocessor memory are certainly real. They can be measured and modified. They are simply switched electrical circuits.
QUOTE
The answer is that they do exist, but they are not physical, objective realities the same way that matter is. They do not have mass. Their reality-status is dependent on pattern-recognition. They do not exist independently of human cognition. From the perspective of a human observer living inside a body, nothing can.
Objects in computer memory do indeed exist physically. Mass has nothing to do with it. Physical can mean many things, but in this context, it means "existing in a way that can be observed."
I'm not sure that even you know what you're trying to say here.
Buttress, sometimes your critiques are so enlightening, however rude. But sometimes I think you are intentionally obfuscating my points by confounding them with irrelevant responses.
The word, "imaginary" works if by it you mean "things of the imagination" and not just a synonym for "unreal" or "non-existent."
My point with the physical/material RAM/processor events was that the representations of those events you see projected on your computer screen are not real in the same sense as the hardware-events. Still, you double-click an icon to "open a folder" instead of manually scanning the hard-disk for data. Desktop icons are VIRTUAL objects, just as God and Santa Clause are virtual entities. Does that work for you?
The word, "imaginary" works if by it you mean "things of the imagination" and not just a synonym for "unreal" or "non-existent."
My point with the physical/material RAM/processor events was that the representations of those events you see projected on your computer screen are not real in the same sense as the hardware-events. Still, you double-click an icon to "open a folder" instead of manually scanning the hard-disk for data. Desktop icons are VIRTUAL objects, just as God and Santa Clause are virtual entities. Does that work for you?
Massive analogy fail. Bits stored in microprocessor memory are certainly real. They can be measured and modified. They are simply switched electrical circuits.
This is the same thing I'm trying to tell you about God. God is simply activated by switching on the "faith circuit" inside your human spirit. Once you switch on that circuit, God appears before you in the form of a desktop icon. Then, when you double-click the icon (inside yourself), you engage the software program, Holy Spirit 1.0, which is a system utility that causes other software programs to run in the interest of good will, faith in truth. resistance of temptation/sin, etc. while pursuing other projects. This is all that it means for God to exist - i.e. God only exists as an idea manifested by humans. How many times do I have to say that He doesn't exist as an empirically observable physical being?
I think you are trying to insist that for God to exist, He HAS to be a physical entity, because that is the only way you can disprove His existence. Not true?
QUOTE
Replace the word "non-material" with "imaginary" and you'll have a better understanding about what you're talking about.
The word, "imaginary" works if by it you mean "things of the imagination" and not just a synonym for "unreal" or "non-existent."
My point with the physical/material RAM/processor events was that the representations of those events you see projected on your computer screen are not real in the same sense as the hardware-events. Still, you double-click an icon to "open a folder" instead of manually scanning the hard-disk for data. Desktop icons are VIRTUAL objects, just as God and Santa Clause are virtual entities. Does that work for you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Replace the word "non-material" with "imaginary" and you'll have a better understanding about what you're talking about. |
The word, "imaginary" works if by it you mean "things of the imagination" and not just a synonym for "unreal" or "non-existent."
My point with the physical/material RAM/processor events was that the representations of those events you see projected on your computer screen are not real in the same sense as the hardware-events. Still, you double-click an icon to "open a folder" instead of manually scanning the hard-disk for data. Desktop icons are VIRTUAL objects, just as God and Santa Clause are virtual entities. Does that work for you?
Massive analogy fail. Bits stored in microprocessor memory are certainly real. They can be measured and modified. They are simply switched electrical circuits.
This is the same thing I'm trying to tell you about God. God is simply activated by switching on the "faith circuit" inside your human spirit. Once you switch on that circuit, God appears before you in the form of a desktop icon. Then, when you double-click the icon (inside yourself), you engage the software program, Holy Spirit 1.0, which is a system utility that causes other software programs to run in the interest of good will, faith in truth. resistance of temptation/sin, etc. while pursuing other projects. This is all that it means for God to exist - i.e. God only exists as an idea manifested by humans. How many times do I have to say that He doesn't exist as an empirically observable physical being?
I think you are trying to insist that for God to exist, He HAS to be a physical entity, because that is the only way you can disprove His existence. Not true?
light in the tunnel,
In short, god is imaginary.
In short, god is imaginary.
light in the tunnel,
Your "virtual" god is fairly useless, and it fails to satisfy the definition of god by several orders of magnitude. It has no power outside of the human psyche, and doesn't even offer communication between brain-gods. Your god is nothing but a mutually agreed-upon hallucination.
Kudos on finally using a decent analogy.
I think the reason why you had trouble getting that point across is because many refer to god as being non-material yet physical, like ectoplasm.
Your "virtual" god is fairly useless, and it fails to satisfy the definition of god by several orders of magnitude. It has no power outside of the human psyche, and doesn't even offer communication between brain-gods. Your god is nothing but a mutually agreed-upon hallucination.
Kudos on finally using a decent analogy.
I think the reason why you had trouble getting that point across is because many refer to god as being non-material yet physical, like ectoplasm.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 23 2009, 02:35 PM)
Replace the word "non-material" with "imaginary" and you'll have a better understanding about what you're talking about.
It might be better say something along the lines of "person dependant" vs "Person independant".
It might be better say something along the lines of "person dependant" vs "Person independant".
Well, you all finally seem to get it. But I still you don't get the idea that God's existence as a fixture of faith and spirit IS powerful. If the human spirit and faith was not powerful, it would not matter to you whether to acknowledge God's existence or not, and in what form. It would not matter to you whether to call God "imaginary," "a hallucination," "a reality," or "the very foundation of everything that exists insofar as it is perceivable by human beings."
All these things are true, but you will probably deny the second two. Why? Because your faith is so strong in the existence of the physical-material universe of person-independent things, that you cannot possibly deal with the absolute truth that nothing is perceivable or thinkable to humans without their consciousness and spirit to perceive it.
Instead you want to use your spirit to transcend the limitation of being locked on the inside of your body. You want to directly know the physical realities outside your body without having to deal with the empirical truth that your senses are the only access you have to those realities.
Now that we've deconstructed the physical existence of God, let's see if you can deconstruct the positivist dream of a reality unmediated by the living sensory apparatus.
All these things are true, but you will probably deny the second two. Why? Because your faith is so strong in the existence of the physical-material universe of person-independent things, that you cannot possibly deal with the absolute truth that nothing is perceivable or thinkable to humans without their consciousness and spirit to perceive it.
Instead you want to use your spirit to transcend the limitation of being locked on the inside of your body. You want to directly know the physical realities outside your body without having to deal with the empirical truth that your senses are the only access you have to those realities.
Now that we've deconstructed the physical existence of God, let's see if you can deconstruct the positivist dream of a reality unmediated by the living sensory apparatus.
You are more Athiest than I am.
You deny that God might exist.
There are people who say that God is real.
They are Theists.
You say that God is not real, that he is just imagination of people.
That makes you an Athiest.
I say we can't know because we are limited to our senses.
That makes me an Agnostic.
And as for having faith, I doubt you can even prove to me that I exist.
You deny that God might exist.
There are people who say that God is real.
They are Theists.
You say that God is not real, that he is just imagination of people.
That makes you an Athiest.
I say we can't know because we are limited to our senses.
That makes me an Agnostic.
And as for having faith, I doubt you can even prove to me that I exist.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 23 2009, 10:32 PM)
You are more Athiest than I am.
You deny that God might exist.
I denied that God "might" exist? What, you mean outside of human consciousness? I said that God exists within human consciousness, whether people deny it or not. I'll go one further and say that God exists as an affective presence in human actions, sometimes, in the form of the holy spirit.
What can you know of what exists outside of human consciousness? If you know it, that is only because it exists in your consciousness. Transcending this fundamental limitation is an impossible dream, one that only exists as a result of the human spirit. Your faith in the existence of things beyond your consciousness and perceptions is itself a leap of faith. What other access do you have to extra-perceptual realities?
Correction: those who say that God is real, and thereby express faith in their perception of the reality of God are realizing God by allowing their faith to be fully expressed in their perceptions.
Theists are people who believe in God, in whatever form. Atheists are those who deny the existence of God, in whatever form.
Do you deny the existence of imagination as well?
Correction: those who say that God is real, and thereby express faith in their perception of the reality of God are realizing God by allowing their faith to be fully expressed in their perceptions.
Theists are people who believe in God, in whatever form. Atheists are those who deny the existence of God, in whatever form.
Do you deny the existence of imagination as well?
I say we can't know because we are limited to our senses.
That makes me an Agnostic.
Correction: what makes you agnostic is that you use empiricism to cast doubt on your knowledge of God, and then suspend judgment. I.e. you sense nothing outside yourself that you would identify as God, based on your understanding of your knowledge of what God is supposed to be.
Try this thought experiment: Start with the absolute creative potential attributed to the concept of "God." Now consider the proposition that God created the human spirit in His image, meaning that humans are endowed with absolute creative potential. Now reverse the equation so that human consciousness is God and "God" is the creation.
Now, if in fact your spirit has the power to create God as an absolute reality in the universe of your consciousness, then God will be absolutely real in your universe. Your spirit will have been successful in creating God, absolutely. If you succeed in this, then you will have proven that God exists as the absolute creative potential to create/replicate Himself in His own image.
In other words, if God in fact gave you his power to recreate Himself in His own image, then you have the power to recreate God in your consciousness, in this same image - hence realizing God's power within yourself to create God as a reality.
So the issue isn't whether God is a reality but whether He gave you the power to create him as a reality or not. If you believe he didn't, then you won't being able to realize Him. If you have faith in Him, and by extension your power to realize him, you will.
Have some faith in yourself, man!
You deny that God might exist.
I denied that God "might" exist? What, you mean outside of human consciousness? I said that God exists within human consciousness, whether people deny it or not. I'll go one further and say that God exists as an affective presence in human actions, sometimes, in the form of the holy spirit.
What can you know of what exists outside of human consciousness? If you know it, that is only because it exists in your consciousness. Transcending this fundamental limitation is an impossible dream, one that only exists as a result of the human spirit. Your faith in the existence of things beyond your consciousness and perceptions is itself a leap of faith. What other access do you have to extra-perceptual realities?
QUOTE
There are people who say that God is real.
They are Theists.
You say that God is not real, that he is just imagination of people.
That makes you an Athiest.
They are Theists.
You say that God is not real, that he is just imagination of people.
That makes you an Athiest.
Correction: those who say that God is real, and thereby express faith in their perception of the reality of God are realizing God by allowing their faith to be fully expressed in their perceptions.
Theists are people who believe in God, in whatever form. Atheists are those who deny the existence of God, in whatever form.
Do you deny the existence of imagination as well?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are people who say that God is real. They are Theists. You say that God is not real, that he is just imagination of people. That makes you an Athiest. |
Correction: those who say that God is real, and thereby express faith in their perception of the reality of God are realizing God by allowing their faith to be fully expressed in their perceptions.
Theists are people who believe in God, in whatever form. Atheists are those who deny the existence of God, in whatever form.
Do you deny the existence of imagination as well?
I say we can't know because we are limited to our senses.
That makes me an Agnostic.
Correction: what makes you agnostic is that you use empiricism to cast doubt on your knowledge of God, and then suspend judgment. I.e. you sense nothing outside yourself that you would identify as God, based on your understanding of your knowledge of what God is supposed to be.
Try this thought experiment: Start with the absolute creative potential attributed to the concept of "God." Now consider the proposition that God created the human spirit in His image, meaning that humans are endowed with absolute creative potential. Now reverse the equation so that human consciousness is God and "God" is the creation.
Now, if in fact your spirit has the power to create God as an absolute reality in the universe of your consciousness, then God will be absolutely real in your universe. Your spirit will have been successful in creating God, absolutely. If you succeed in this, then you will have proven that God exists as the absolute creative potential to create/replicate Himself in His own image.
In other words, if God in fact gave you his power to recreate Himself in His own image, then you have the power to recreate God in your consciousness, in this same image - hence realizing God's power within yourself to create God as a reality.
So the issue isn't whether God is a reality but whether He gave you the power to create him as a reality or not. If you believe he didn't, then you won't being able to realize Him. If you have faith in Him, and by extension your power to realize him, you will.
QUOTE
And as for having faith, I doubt you can even prove to me that I exist.
Have some faith in yourself, man!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 23 2009, 11:01 PM)
I denied that God "might" exist? What, you mean outside of human consciousness? I said that God exists within human consciousness, whether people deny it or not. I'll go one further and say that God exists as an affective presence in human actions, sometimes, in the form of the holy spirit.
And Theists say that God exists outside of human consciousness.
How is God more real than Santa Claus?
Did the Holy Spirit exist before People?
If you say no, that makes you an Athiest.
The word is Athiest not "someone who does not believe in God", it means not theist.
comeing up with a non-theist view of God does not make you a theist.
And Theists say that God exists outside of human consciousness.
How is God more real than Santa Claus?
Did the Holy Spirit exist before People?
If you say no, that makes you an Athiest.
The word is Athiest not "someone who does not believe in God", it means not theist.
comeing up with a non-theist view of God does not make you a theist.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 23 2009, 11:41 PM)
And Theists say that God exists outside of human consciousness.
How is God more real than Santa Claus?
Did the Holy Spirit exist before People?
If you say no, that makes you an Athiest.
At some point you really expect to define God as something outside of human consciousness in order to prove His non-existence, don't you?
How can the holy spirit exist prior to its specific emergence in a particular person at a particular moment? As a potentiality? How can a potentiality of the human spirit exist prior to the existence of human spirit? The holy spirit is itself a potentiality to act in a holy way, however defined.
How can you say that in order for a book to exist, it has to exist prior to being printed, when the book really only exists as a book when it is read? Otherwise it's a paperweight or fuel or toilet paper or whatever else you use it for.
Besides, the existence of God or the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to them functioning as they do. The only thing relevant is what they do. You can call them hallucinations if you want. You're only denying yourself the ability to believe in them.
Now, what is this? A theist is someone who believes in God so someone who is not a theist does not mean "someone who does not believe in God?" Instead it means, "not someone who believes in God?" I'm missing the distinction, which must seem relevant to you. Is it worth explaining?
How is God more real than Santa Claus?
Did the Holy Spirit exist before People?
If you say no, that makes you an Athiest.
At some point you really expect to define God as something outside of human consciousness in order to prove His non-existence, don't you?
How can the holy spirit exist prior to its specific emergence in a particular person at a particular moment? As a potentiality? How can a potentiality of the human spirit exist prior to the existence of human spirit? The holy spirit is itself a potentiality to act in a holy way, however defined.
How can you say that in order for a book to exist, it has to exist prior to being printed, when the book really only exists as a book when it is read? Otherwise it's a paperweight or fuel or toilet paper or whatever else you use it for.
Besides, the existence of God or the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to them functioning as they do. The only thing relevant is what they do. You can call them hallucinations if you want. You're only denying yourself the ability to believe in them.
QUOTE
The word is Athiest not "someone who does not believe in God", it means not theist.
comeing up with a non-theist view of God does not make you a theist
comeing up with a non-theist view of God does not make you a theist
Now, what is this? A theist is someone who believes in God so someone who is not a theist does not mean "someone who does not believe in God?" Instead it means, "not someone who believes in God?" I'm missing the distinction, which must seem relevant to you. Is it worth explaining?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 24 2009, 12:02 AM)
At some point you really expect to define God as something outside of human consciousness in order to prove His non-existence, don't you?
No I'm pointing out that you are not a Theist. If you don't believe in a God outside of human conciousness then you are not a Theist.
I'm not that one saying that the Theists are wrong, you are.
How could God create man if man needed to come first?
Thiests say that god created man.
Would you put on skates, get a curved stick, and a puck, then claim you were playing tennis?
You simply playing Nopeda's game of making up your own definitions in order to avoid admiting you are an Atheist.
No I'm pointing out that you are not a Theist. If you don't believe in a God outside of human conciousness then you are not a Theist.
I'm not that one saying that the Theists are wrong, you are.
How could God create man if man needed to come first?
Thiests say that god created man.
Would you put on skates, get a curved stick, and a puck, then claim you were playing tennis?
You simply playing Nopeda's game of making up your own definitions in order to avoid admiting you are an Atheist.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 24 2009, 12:21 AM)
No I'm pointing out that you are not a Theist. If you don't believe in a God outside of human conciousness then you are not a Theist.
You simply playing Nopeda's game of making up your own definitions in order to avoid admiting you are an Atheist.
I am an atheist who realized God through studying the mythologies as texts. I have explained this on other posts.
Wrong about what? God existing as a spiritual potentiality and the universe existing in human consciousness as a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective one?
Wrong about what? God existing as a spiritual potentiality and the universe existing in human consciousness as a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective one?
How could God create man if man needed to come first?
Thiests say that god created man.
It is the same thing. God created man in his image. Therefore man exists as God's creation of Himself. Therefore man can create God in man's image, insofar as this is the image of God that God bestowed on man. Man realizes God as the expression of the power to create his own origins. So in creating theology, man realizes God by creating knowledge of Him.
Maybe the beginning of the book of John is relevant here. I may not get the quote exactly right but I'm not going to look it up. It goes something like, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." You see, God exists as the word, written by men. Only the word is recognized as being "with God," which seems to be a reference to the moment of writing the word through divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
John 1:1 seems to be a reference to Genesis 1:1 where it is written that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." John seems to be stating a preface to this, which is that the creation of an origin-myth is itself the power of God. So to state that God created everything known to exist (genesis) is to realize God by creating Him at the center of your experience of everything. Then to state that God is the power to create knowledge and the knowledge itself, i.e. "the word" adds to Genesis by stating that the mythology of God, i.e. the theology itself, is both divinity itself and the product of divinity. Saying that the word precedes the human who writes or speaks it, and that it is was simultaneously with God and divinity itself addresses your issue of what came first and how.
The word came first, and the word was with God, and the word was God. It's simply and elegantly stated - just difficult to process because it requires thinking differently than you may be used to.
What does this mean? Would you apply positivist assumptions about the physical universe to matters of spirt and call it theology?
What does this mean? Would you apply positivist assumptions about the physical universe to matters of spirt and call it theology?
It means you say that God only exists inside of people's minds.
That is NOT what theists say.
You are not a Theist.
You are still an Atheist.
And using mumbo jumbo to say that Theists are wrong, and made their own God to whorship.
Why don't you become a Jedi? They are as real to you as any other group.
Theology is not mythology to Theists, only you.
And I stopped thinking like you before I went into 7th grade, so don't think you are onto something new.
You simply playing Nopeda's game of making up your own definitions in order to avoid admiting you are an Atheist.
I am an atheist who realized God through studying the mythologies as texts. I have explained this on other posts.
QUOTE
I'm not that one saying that the Theists are wrong, you are.
Wrong about what? God existing as a spiritual potentiality and the universe existing in human consciousness as a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective one?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not that one saying that the Theists are wrong, you are. |
Wrong about what? God existing as a spiritual potentiality and the universe existing in human consciousness as a subjective phenomenon rather than an objective one?
How could God create man if man needed to come first?
Thiests say that god created man.
It is the same thing. God created man in his image. Therefore man exists as God's creation of Himself. Therefore man can create God in man's image, insofar as this is the image of God that God bestowed on man. Man realizes God as the expression of the power to create his own origins. So in creating theology, man realizes God by creating knowledge of Him.
Maybe the beginning of the book of John is relevant here. I may not get the quote exactly right but I'm not going to look it up. It goes something like, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." You see, God exists as the word, written by men. Only the word is recognized as being "with God," which seems to be a reference to the moment of writing the word through divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
John 1:1 seems to be a reference to Genesis 1:1 where it is written that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." John seems to be stating a preface to this, which is that the creation of an origin-myth is itself the power of God. So to state that God created everything known to exist (genesis) is to realize God by creating Him at the center of your experience of everything. Then to state that God is the power to create knowledge and the knowledge itself, i.e. "the word" adds to Genesis by stating that the mythology of God, i.e. the theology itself, is both divinity itself and the product of divinity. Saying that the word precedes the human who writes or speaks it, and that it is was simultaneously with God and divinity itself addresses your issue of what came first and how.
The word came first, and the word was with God, and the word was God. It's simply and elegantly stated - just difficult to process because it requires thinking differently than you may be used to.
QUOTE
Would you put on skates, get a curved stick, and a puck, then claim you were playing tennis?
What does this mean? Would you apply positivist assumptions about the physical universe to matters of spirt and call it theology?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 24 2009, 01:39 AM)
What does this mean? Would you apply positivist assumptions about the physical universe to matters of spirt and call it theology?
It means you say that God only exists inside of people's minds.
That is NOT what theists say.
You are not a Theist.
You are still an Atheist.
And using mumbo jumbo to say that Theists are wrong, and made their own God to whorship.
Why don't you become a Jedi? They are as real to you as any other group.
Theology is not mythology to Theists, only you.
And I stopped thinking like you before I went into 7th grade, so don't think you are onto something new.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 21 2009, 04:11 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
In a way it's not funny at all . If God does exist then you would be screwing another being out of an eternity of life of positive value if you could persuade them to reject the possibility of his existence.
what positive value do you gain which an atheist cannot gain?
In the example you responded to it would be a decent life after death.
. If God does exist then you would be screwing another being out of an eternity of life of positive value if you could persuade them to reject the possibility of his existence.what positive value do you gain which an atheist cannot gain?
In the example you responded to it would be a decent life after death.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 23 2009, 04:47 PM)
god is imaginary.
Are there no gods anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods some place(s) in the universe but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find out?
Are there no gods anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods some place(s) in the universe but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find out?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 24 2009, 01:25 PM)
In the example you responded to it would be a decent life after death.
Please tell us how any god, alien or not, can grant life after death.
If I was as loose with the definition of 'god' as you are, I would be a pantheist.
Please tell us how any god, alien or not, can grant life after death.
QUOTE
Are there no gods anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods some place(s) in the universe but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find out?
If I was as loose with the definition of 'god' as you are, I would be a pantheist.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 24 2009, 10:55 PM)
In the example you responded to it would be a decent life after death.
Or 72 virgins if you are a Muslim terrorist...right?
Or 72 virgins if you are a Muslim terrorist...right?
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 24 2009, 11:05 PM)
Are there no gods anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out? Or are there gods some place(s) in the universe but just none associated with this planet, and if so how did you find out?
Is there no Easter Bunny anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out?
You still don't get the comparison...do you?
Is there no Easter Bunny anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out?
You still don't get the comparison...do you?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.