QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 24 2009, 10:54 AM)
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.
From the mythology of Star Wars, it would be possible to become a Jedi Knight, in terms of spiritual discipline, morality, ethics, etc. You would have a hard time building a light-saber and finding a (living) Jedi Master to coach you. But using text and ideas from the movies, you could become a more disciplined, and dare I say better, person by practicing Jedi-ism.
Just beware of the dark side of the force. Very powerful it is:) (tried to click a yoda smiley, but the green one only works in the post icons)
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.
From the mythology of Star Wars, it would be possible to become a Jedi Knight, in terms of spiritual discipline, morality, ethics, etc. You would have a hard time building a light-saber and finding a (living) Jedi Master to coach you. But using text and ideas from the movies, you could become a more disciplined, and dare I say better, person by practicing Jedi-ism.
Just beware of the dark side of the force. Very powerful it is:) (tried to click a yoda smiley, but the green one only works in the post icons)
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 24 2009, 05:35 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?
No one knows whether there are or not. It's just that it is irrelevant to the practice of spiritual faith and studying the theology of the bible or any other teachings. The only relevant issue involving God is whether you are able to realize Him/Her/It in spirit, and draw on your faith to do good for yourself and others.
As worst searching for God on other planets is a diversion from the realization of God through faith. I.e. by searching outside yourself, you fail to search inside yourself, where you have to be looking in order to "be found." But who am I to judge? Maybe living in a spaceship cruising around the universe in search of God is just the mediation you need to discover faith. God works in mysterious ways:)
No one knows whether there are or not. It's just that it is irrelevant to the practice of spiritual faith and studying the theology of the bible or any other teachings. The only relevant issue involving God is whether you are able to realize Him/Her/It in spirit, and draw on your faith to do good for yourself and others.
As worst searching for God on other planets is a diversion from the realization of God through faith. I.e. by searching outside yourself, you fail to search inside yourself, where you have to be looking in order to "be found." But who am I to judge? Maybe living in a spaceship cruising around the universe in search of God is just the mediation you need to discover faith. God works in mysterious ways:)
This could be interesting.
One says that God only exists inside people's imagination.
The other says that not onlly is God external to people but also extra-terrestrial.
But then neither one is talking about God.
One says that God only exists inside people's imagination.
The other says that not onlly is God external to people but also extra-terrestrial.
But then neither one is talking about God.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 25 2009, 12:31 AM)
This could be interesting.
One says that God only exists inside people's imagination.
The other says that not onlly is God external to people but also extra-terrestrial.
Buttershug, you seem to have some deep insight into God and theism. Why don't you share that and enlighten us, instead of trying to beat us down with your arrogance?
Also, I don't appreciate you continuing to insist that I say that God ONLY exists inside people's imagination. If the book of John says that "in the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God," then the word of God must precede everything, including the humans who discover and realize that word. The question of what the word is, why it was present "in the beginning, and what "the beginning" actually refers to, should explain the existence of God, according to St. John at least, don't you think?
This whole thread has been little more than talking about God. It's time you started talking about God, as you understand it, instead of talking about others not talking about what we are trying to talk about here.
One says that God only exists inside people's imagination.
The other says that not onlly is God external to people but also extra-terrestrial.
Buttershug, you seem to have some deep insight into God and theism. Why don't you share that and enlighten us, instead of trying to beat us down with your arrogance?
Also, I don't appreciate you continuing to insist that I say that God ONLY exists inside people's imagination. If the book of John says that "in the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God," then the word of God must precede everything, including the humans who discover and realize that word. The question of what the word is, why it was present "in the beginning, and what "the beginning" actually refers to, should explain the existence of God, according to St. John at least, don't you think?
QUOTE
But then neither one is talking about God.
This whole thread has been little more than talking about God. It's time you started talking about God, as you understand it, instead of talking about others not talking about what we are trying to talk about here.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 25 2009, 06:25 PM)
If the book of John says that "in the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God," then the word of God must precede everything, including the humans who discover and realize that word. The question of what the word is, why it was present "in the beginning, and what "the beginning" actually refers to, should explain the existence of God, according to St. John at least, don't you think?
It sounds more like poetry. Maybe we are not supposed to take it literally?
It sounds more like poetry. Maybe we are not supposed to take it literally?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 25 2009, 12:55 PM)
Also, I don't appreciate you continuing to insist that I say that God ONLY exists inside people's imagination.
Then stop sounding like "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus."
And didn't you answer in the negative when I asked if God existed before people?
And buy a dictionary, go to Sunday School, read up on what the Pope believes.
Read up on what Muslims believe.
If you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
And do you play baseball with a furry mammal?
Word in the context of what St John said does not mean a word such as "jehova".
The word "word" has a differrent meaning.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 25 2009, 02:12 PM)
Then stop sounding like "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus."
And didn't you answer in the negative when I asked if God existed before people?
And buy a dictionary, go to Sunday School, read up on what the Pope believes.
Read up on what Muslims believe.
If you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
And do you play baseball with a furry mammal?
Word in the context of what St John said does not mean a word such as "jehova".
The word "word" has a differrent meaning.
First of all, every statement in your post is a negative reaction without any constructive alternative. If you know how to count donkey's legs better than I do, start your anatomy lesson.
Yes, but in the context of a positivist logic in which nothing can exist as a potential prior to its materialization. In the sense that the realization of God existed before the evolution of the human ability to activate it, God's "word" did exist before humans.
Yes, but in the context of a positivist logic in which nothing can exist as a potential prior to its materialization. In the sense that the realization of God existed before the evolution of the human ability to activate it, God's "word" did exist before humans.
Word in the context of what St John said does not mean a word such as "jehova".
The word "word" has a differrent meaning.
I think it has multiple meanings, which is why theological writing often sounds poetic. The "word" of God could mean "power" "teachings" "spirit" "will" "knowledge" etc. etc. It could mean all possible expressions of divinity. To the extent that the word, "jehova" expresses a certain aspect of divinity, it is a part of "the word."
Why don't you start explaining theology if you understand it better or at least differently than I do. Give me a chance to respond to the things you say instead of the reverse, for a change.
I just read an excellent book by an atheist about faith.
About the reality of faith, and its meaning and importance.
This seems at first glance to be an impossibility, how could an atheist be promoting faith? The answer he provides is that faith is an actual cognitive function of the brain- a real thing- and to ignore it is to ignore real cognitive function.
So to deny faith is to deny cognition itself.
And didn't you answer in the negative when I asked if God existed before people?
And buy a dictionary, go to Sunday School, read up on what the Pope believes.
Read up on what Muslims believe.
If you call a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
And do you play baseball with a furry mammal?
Word in the context of what St John said does not mean a word such as "jehova".
The word "word" has a differrent meaning.
First of all, every statement in your post is a negative reaction without any constructive alternative. If you know how to count donkey's legs better than I do, start your anatomy lesson.
QUOTE
And didn't you answer in the negative when I asked if God existed before people?
Yes, but in the context of a positivist logic in which nothing can exist as a potential prior to its materialization. In the sense that the realization of God existed before the evolution of the human ability to activate it, God's "word" did exist before humans.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And didn't you answer in the negative when I asked if God existed before people? |
Yes, but in the context of a positivist logic in which nothing can exist as a potential prior to its materialization. In the sense that the realization of God existed before the evolution of the human ability to activate it, God's "word" did exist before humans.
Word in the context of what St John said does not mean a word such as "jehova".
The word "word" has a differrent meaning.
I think it has multiple meanings, which is why theological writing often sounds poetic. The "word" of God could mean "power" "teachings" "spirit" "will" "knowledge" etc. etc. It could mean all possible expressions of divinity. To the extent that the word, "jehova" expresses a certain aspect of divinity, it is a part of "the word."
Why don't you start explaining theology if you understand it better or at least differently than I do. Give me a chance to respond to the things you say instead of the reverse, for a change.
The point of the donkey's tail is that most people answer "5".
But the answer is "4". Just because you call something by another name does not make it that.
People who believe in God, believe that God created everything. That in the begining there was void.
That God is all seeing and all powerfull is also a very common description.
I believe We don't know and we can't know.
And that there is no way to prove it one way or another.
And that you are saying there is no God as God is traditionally believed to be.
Basically you are saying that there is a God but he's not God.
And you are totally dismissing the beliefs of most of the people of the world, so don't act all innocent.
But the answer is "4". Just because you call something by another name does not make it that.
People who believe in God, believe that God created everything. That in the begining there was void.
That God is all seeing and all powerfull is also a very common description.
I believe We don't know and we can't know.
And that there is no way to prove it one way or another.
And that you are saying there is no God as God is traditionally believed to be.
Basically you are saying that there is a God but he's not God.
And you are totally dismissing the beliefs of most of the people of the world, so don't act all innocent.
I just read an excellent book by an atheist about faith.
About the reality of faith, and its meaning and importance.
This seems at first glance to be an impossibility, how could an atheist be promoting faith? The answer he provides is that faith is an actual cognitive function of the brain- a real thing- and to ignore it is to ignore real cognitive function.
So to deny faith is to deny cognition itself.
QUOTE (TinyTree+Sep 25 2009, 06:30 PM)
I just read an excellent book by an atheist about faith.
About the reality of faith, and its meaning and importance.
This seems at first glance to be an impossibility, how could an atheist be promoting faith? The answer he provides is that faith is an actual cognitive function of the brain- a real thing- and to ignore it is to ignore real cognitive function.
So to deny faith is to deny cognition itself.
I choose to have faith that I am a jedi ninja from the future.
About the reality of faith, and its meaning and importance.
This seems at first glance to be an impossibility, how could an atheist be promoting faith? The answer he provides is that faith is an actual cognitive function of the brain- a real thing- and to ignore it is to ignore real cognitive function.
So to deny faith is to deny cognition itself.
I choose to have faith that I am a jedi ninja from the future.
Who came back in time to enjoy our nachos! 
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 25 2009, 08:14 PM)
The point of the donkey's tail is that most people answer "5".
But the answer is "4". Just because you call something by another name does not make it that.
People who believe in God, believe that God created everything. That in the begining there was void.
That God is all seeing and all powerfull is also a very common description.
I believe We don't know and we can't know.
And that there is no way to prove it one way or another.
And that you are saying there is no God as God is traditionally believed to be.
Basically you are saying that there is a God but he's not God.
And you are totally dismissing the beliefs of most of the people of the world, so don't act all innocent.
Have you ever considered that when someone believes in God the way you say, that this is an exercise in faith? - that this is their way of realizing God in everything they believe in, from the beginning of time to the greatest physical force: it is all God.
The reason I have to include God's non-existence as a physical entity in my explanation of God is because part of my vast experience of this life includes the experience I have had of atheism and science. Because God is absent, in the form you describe, from these two forms of knowledge, I must include Gods' non-existence as part of His almighty power.
Some people will tell you that satan is not part of God, but he is. Satan was an angel who became so enamored with his own image as God's greatest assistant that he began to pursue his own egoistic interest, in competition with God's will. This was/is the greatest sin, because God gave the angles and humans all His power to go forth freely with and create and spread goodwill. Still, the power to choose evil instead of good was Lucifer's, just as it was Eve's to pick the apple. These are examples of beings falling from God's grace, and becoming enemies of God, but that doesn't mean that ceased to be part of God and His creation.
The same is true for the power to create knowledge of the creation in which God is absent. To the extent that people believe in the big bang as a physical event that involved no God, it is atheistic. The power to disbelieve in God, i.e. atheism, is itself part of God's power bestowed on humans. Perhaps it is God's power of self-denial. I cannot think of any bible story that addresses this, but maybe someone will think of one and post it. I only know that Christ said that it was not a sin to deny him, but denying the holy spirit was unforgivable.
So to sum up, if it is a sin to deny the existence of God, then it must also be a sin to deny the existence of atheism and the power to deny God. Certainly it is a sin to deny sin, which is why Christians are supposed to confess and repent. I am repentant for my atheism, only because I know that doing so will help me to better realize God's existence. Still, I shouldn't deny God and sin by denying the atheist belief that God is non-existent.
I think you're either going to say that this is impossible, or that I am crazy, or both. We'll see if you have anything constructive.
But the answer is "4". Just because you call something by another name does not make it that.
People who believe in God, believe that God created everything. That in the begining there was void.
That God is all seeing and all powerfull is also a very common description.
I believe We don't know and we can't know.
And that there is no way to prove it one way or another.
And that you are saying there is no God as God is traditionally believed to be.
Basically you are saying that there is a God but he's not God.
And you are totally dismissing the beliefs of most of the people of the world, so don't act all innocent.
Have you ever considered that when someone believes in God the way you say, that this is an exercise in faith? - that this is their way of realizing God in everything they believe in, from the beginning of time to the greatest physical force: it is all God.
The reason I have to include God's non-existence as a physical entity in my explanation of God is because part of my vast experience of this life includes the experience I have had of atheism and science. Because God is absent, in the form you describe, from these two forms of knowledge, I must include Gods' non-existence as part of His almighty power.
Some people will tell you that satan is not part of God, but he is. Satan was an angel who became so enamored with his own image as God's greatest assistant that he began to pursue his own egoistic interest, in competition with God's will. This was/is the greatest sin, because God gave the angles and humans all His power to go forth freely with and create and spread goodwill. Still, the power to choose evil instead of good was Lucifer's, just as it was Eve's to pick the apple. These are examples of beings falling from God's grace, and becoming enemies of God, but that doesn't mean that ceased to be part of God and His creation.
The same is true for the power to create knowledge of the creation in which God is absent. To the extent that people believe in the big bang as a physical event that involved no God, it is atheistic. The power to disbelieve in God, i.e. atheism, is itself part of God's power bestowed on humans. Perhaps it is God's power of self-denial. I cannot think of any bible story that addresses this, but maybe someone will think of one and post it. I only know that Christ said that it was not a sin to deny him, but denying the holy spirit was unforgivable.
So to sum up, if it is a sin to deny the existence of God, then it must also be a sin to deny the existence of atheism and the power to deny God. Certainly it is a sin to deny sin, which is why Christians are supposed to confess and repent. I am repentant for my atheism, only because I know that doing so will help me to better realize God's existence. Still, I shouldn't deny God and sin by denying the atheist belief that God is non-existent.
I think you're either going to say that this is impossible, or that I am crazy, or both. We'll see if you have anything constructive.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 26 2009, 12:35 AM)
Have you ever considered that when someone believes in God the way you say, that this is an exercise in faith? - that this is their way of realizing God in everything they believe in, from the beginning of time to the greatest physical force: it is all God.
Have YOU ever considered that when someone believes in God the way THEY say they do, that this is an exercise in faith? Faith that God is real. That he existed before they did? That He exists outside of them?
More power to them if they admit it's faith not knowledge.
I'm not saying they are wrong. You are.
So don't paint me as the arrogant one and you as the open-minded one.
So your penance for being an Atheist is to deny the existence of (a theist) God?
Have YOU ever considered that when someone believes in God the way THEY say they do, that this is an exercise in faith? Faith that God is real. That he existed before they did? That He exists outside of them?
More power to them if they admit it's faith not knowledge.
I'm not saying they are wrong. You are.
So don't paint me as the arrogant one and you as the open-minded one.
So your penance for being an Atheist is to deny the existence of (a theist) God?
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 26 2009, 01:13 AM)
Have YOU ever considered that when someone believes in God the way THEY say they do, that this is an exercise in faith? Faith that God is real. That he existed before they did? That He exists outside of them?
Yes, that's what I said. I call this "realizing" God, but it should go beyond knowledge of Him to influence the way people live and act in the world. This is what is meant by the expression, "becoming the body of Christ," for example.
It's faith-based knowledge. I take it the reason that you juxtapose faith with knowledge is that when you say "knowledge," you actually only mean positivistic knowledge. I like engaging in positivism, but I was trained to recognize the existence of other forms of knowledge as well, so I don't confound it with knowledge in a more general sense.
It's faith-based knowledge. I take it the reason that you juxtapose faith with knowledge is that when you say "knowledge," you actually only mean positivistic knowledge. I like engaging in positivism, but I was trained to recognize the existence of other forms of knowledge as well, so I don't confound it with knowledge in a more general sense.
I'm not saying they are wrong. You are.
Neither is wrong, except to the extent we regard each other as wrong. And then there is of course the question of whose regard for the other is actually true, in a universal sense. This can only be determined through the application of disciplined reason, which our current discussion is largely lacking in.
How about I paint you green, as Yoda, and I will be Jaba the Hutt?
How about I paint you green, as Yoda, and I will be Jaba the Hutt?
So your penance for being an Atheist is to deny the existence of (a theist) God?
No, because I don't deny it. I recognize it as a product of faith, faith-power being the basis for realizing God. My penance would be to not deny atheism, and try to help others engaged in it to see the light of God's existence outside of theism, so that they can reconcile atheism with the possibility of realizing God, because the two are not irreconcilable as many may think on the basis of logic alone.
A total oxymoron.
A totaloxy*****.
Edit: Interesting. BBcodes separating parts of words are parsed before the words are. Should we say oxyidiots, instead?
Yes, that's what I said. I call this "realizing" God, but it should go beyond knowledge of Him to influence the way people live and act in the world. This is what is meant by the expression, "becoming the body of Christ," for example.
QUOTE
More power to them if they admit it's faith not knowledge.
It's faith-based knowledge. I take it the reason that you juxtapose faith with knowledge is that when you say "knowledge," you actually only mean positivistic knowledge. I like engaging in positivism, but I was trained to recognize the existence of other forms of knowledge as well, so I don't confound it with knowledge in a more general sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More power to them if they admit it's faith not knowledge. |
It's faith-based knowledge. I take it the reason that you juxtapose faith with knowledge is that when you say "knowledge," you actually only mean positivistic knowledge. I like engaging in positivism, but I was trained to recognize the existence of other forms of knowledge as well, so I don't confound it with knowledge in a more general sense.
I'm not saying they are wrong. You are.
Neither is wrong, except to the extent we regard each other as wrong. And then there is of course the question of whose regard for the other is actually true, in a universal sense. This can only be determined through the application of disciplined reason, which our current discussion is largely lacking in.
QUOTE
So don't paint me as the arrogant one and you as the open-minded one.
How about I paint you green, as Yoda, and I will be Jaba the Hutt?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So don't paint me as the arrogant one and you as the open-minded one. |
How about I paint you green, as Yoda, and I will be Jaba the Hutt?
So your penance for being an Atheist is to deny the existence of (a theist) God?
No, because I don't deny it. I recognize it as a product of faith, faith-power being the basis for realizing God. My penance would be to not deny atheism, and try to help others engaged in it to see the light of God's existence outside of theism, so that they can reconcile atheism with the possibility of realizing God, because the two are not irreconcilable as many may think on the basis of logic alone.
Faith based knowledge is a contradiction.
It's worse than building on sand.
As far as I can tell you are sincere.
Maybe you can tell me how Newguy knows it's God that saved his life.
And not chance if you don't believe in the supernatural, or maybe Hermes the messenger God who also took care of travelers.
He keeps saying he has answered but won't link to the posts that he claims answer such questions.
It's worse than building on sand.
As far as I can tell you are sincere.
Maybe you can tell me how Newguy knows it's God that saved his life.
And not chance if you don't believe in the supernatural, or maybe Hermes the messenger God who also took care of travelers.
He keeps saying he has answered but won't link to the posts that he claims answer such questions.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 26 2009, 02:12 PM)
Faith based knowledge is a contradiction.
It's worse than building on sand.
As far as I can tell you are sincere.
Maybe you can tell me how Newguy knows it's God that saved his life.
And not chance if you don't believe in the supernatural, or maybe Hermes the messenger God who also took care of travelers.
He keeps saying he has answered but won't link to the posts that he claims answer such questions.
Just wait until you find yourself in the conundrum of unbridgeable doubt. Then let me know what gets you out of it, except faith based knowledge.
I assume that you have not applied enough scientific skepticism to the knowledge you have, yet, to be able to recognize how much of your everyday knowledge and assumptions are the product of faith and not scientific inquiry.
I don't know what happened to Newguy or how his life was saved, and why he believes God was involved and how. I'm sure that if he has faith that God was involved, he will have realized God in his life - until someone like you succeeds in tempting him into doubting his faith.
It's worse than building on sand.
As far as I can tell you are sincere.
Maybe you can tell me how Newguy knows it's God that saved his life.
And not chance if you don't believe in the supernatural, or maybe Hermes the messenger God who also took care of travelers.
He keeps saying he has answered but won't link to the posts that he claims answer such questions.
Just wait until you find yourself in the conundrum of unbridgeable doubt. Then let me know what gets you out of it, except faith based knowledge.
I assume that you have not applied enough scientific skepticism to the knowledge you have, yet, to be able to recognize how much of your everyday knowledge and assumptions are the product of faith and not scientific inquiry.
I don't know what happened to Newguy or how his life was saved, and why he believes God was involved and how. I'm sure that if he has faith that God was involved, he will have realized God in his life - until someone like you succeeds in tempting him into doubting his faith.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 02:16 AM)
I'm sure that if he has faith that God was involved, he will have realized God in his life - until someone like you succeeds in tempting him into doubting his faith.
Quite the opposite..I think it is actually tempting to believe in God. Who doesn't want an all powerful father figure in the sky watching over them?
There is no comfort in Atheism, just cold reality. That is precisely the reason why there are few atheists.
Quite the opposite..I think it is actually tempting to believe in God. Who doesn't want an all powerful father figure in the sky watching over them?
There is no comfort in Atheism, just cold reality. That is precisely the reason why there are few atheists.
I am not quite so rational, maybe. My faith that God exists is quite simple, but everything that he (or she, whatever...) did here was to start up the machinery of this universe. If he harvests anything, that's a plus. Maybe... 
Why anyone cares beyond that is not a matter of faith, but of narrow-minded anthropocentric BS.
DUDE, if you're listening, "take care"...
Why anyone cares beyond that is not a matter of faith, but of narrow-minded anthropocentric BS.
DUDE, if you're listening, "take care"...
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 26 2009, 08:46 PM)
Just wait until you find yourself in the conundrum of unbridgeable doubt. Then let me know what gets you out of it, except faith based knowledge.
You mean you think someday I might think it's possible to know something?
You mean you think someday I might think it's possible to know something?
QUOTE
faith based knowledge.
A total oxymoron.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 26 2009, 05:57 PM)
A total
Edit: Interesting. BBcodes separating parts of words are parsed before the words are. Should we say oxyidiots, instead?
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 26 2009, 10:12 PM)
Quite the opposite..I think it is actually tempting to believe in God. Who doesn't want an all powerful father figure in the sky watching over them?
There is no comfort in Atheism, just cold reality. That is precisely the reason why there are few atheists.
The comfort in atheism is the idea that an individual can get away with anything if they don't get caught by human authorities. God is the idea that you can't ultimately hide or lie about anything you've done in life. You will eventually be judged. This prospect is extremely uncomfortable to people who have something to fear at the moment of judgment.
The reason why there are so few atheists is probably a combination of things. First, many people only believe in God (or say they do anyway) to avoid social judgment of questioning the existence of God. These people don't really believe in God, they would agree to worship satan each week if there was a church close-by that all their friends and family attended.
Second, many people who are unsure about the existence of God decide to play it safe by not making the consequential stand to reject His existence. They don't really experience God's presence in their lives, but they're afraid they might get struck by lightening if they stick their head out the window and challenge God to prove His existence.
Finally, some people ARE independent thinkers and have enough faith in their own rational understanding of things to seriously doubt if such an entity as God exists. However, some of these people may arrive at spiritual or ethical conundrums that lead them to choose to embrace the idea of God and study theology as a means of creating direction in their lives, which have otherwise fallen into moral confusion as a result of relativism. In that case, faith in God is more a means to peace of mind than a sense of evidence that God exists as an entity outside themselves.
There is no comfort in Atheism, just cold reality. That is precisely the reason why there are few atheists.
The comfort in atheism is the idea that an individual can get away with anything if they don't get caught by human authorities. God is the idea that you can't ultimately hide or lie about anything you've done in life. You will eventually be judged. This prospect is extremely uncomfortable to people who have something to fear at the moment of judgment.
The reason why there are so few atheists is probably a combination of things. First, many people only believe in God (or say they do anyway) to avoid social judgment of questioning the existence of God. These people don't really believe in God, they would agree to worship satan each week if there was a church close-by that all their friends and family attended.
Second, many people who are unsure about the existence of God decide to play it safe by not making the consequential stand to reject His existence. They don't really experience God's presence in their lives, but they're afraid they might get struck by lightening if they stick their head out the window and challenge God to prove His existence.
Finally, some people ARE independent thinkers and have enough faith in their own rational understanding of things to seriously doubt if such an entity as God exists. However, some of these people may arrive at spiritual or ethical conundrums that lead them to choose to embrace the idea of God and study theology as a means of creating direction in their lives, which have otherwise fallen into moral confusion as a result of relativism. In that case, faith in God is more a means to peace of mind than a sense of evidence that God exists as an entity outside themselves.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 26 2009, 07:00 PM)
The comfort in atheism is the idea that an individual can get away with anything if they don't get caught by human authorities. God is the idea that you can't ultimately hide or lie about anything you've done in life. You will eventually be judged. This prospect is extremely uncomfortable to people who have something to fear at the moment of judgment.
That's completely wrong. One, religion allows you to get away with just as much with the concept of "forgiveness." You could kill someone and just ask god to forgive you afterward. Two, atheists are LESS likely to commit crimes thanks to their primary demographic of smart, educated people. Thirdly, most of the "sins" that Christians get the most worked up about are the ones that hurt no-one (e.g. masturbation, homosexuality, political liberalism, etc etc).
So you don't think that the comfort of the afterlife is an issue? The idea of god is comfortable. Most believers in god would say that everyone goes to heaven, just not "bad" people. It's a comfortable, squishy, cute idea.
So you don't think that the comfort of the afterlife is an issue? The idea of god is comfortable. Most believers in god would say that everyone goes to heaven, just not "bad" people. It's a comfortable, squishy, cute idea.
Finally, some people ARE independent thinkers and have enough faith in their own rational understanding of things to seriously doubt if such an entity as God exists. However, some of these people may arrive at spiritual or ethical conundrums that lead them to choose to embrace the idea of God and study theology as a means of creating direction in their lives, which have otherwise fallen into moral confusion as a result of relativism. In that case, faith in God is more a means to peace of mind than a sense of evidence that God exists as an entity outside themselves.
"Rational thinking" and "studying theology" are incompatible statements. What ethical question could possibly drive anyone to believe in god?
That's completely wrong. One, religion allows you to get away with just as much with the concept of "forgiveness." You could kill someone and just ask god to forgive you afterward. Two, atheists are LESS likely to commit crimes thanks to their primary demographic of smart, educated people. Thirdly, most of the "sins" that Christians get the most worked up about are the ones that hurt no-one (e.g. masturbation, homosexuality, political liberalism, etc etc).
QUOTE
The reason why there are so few atheists is probably a combination of things. First, many people only believe in God (or say they do anyway) to avoid social judgment of questioning the existence of God. These people don't really believe in God, they would agree to worship satan each week if there was a church close-by that all their friends and family attended.
So you don't think that the comfort of the afterlife is an issue? The idea of god is comfortable. Most believers in god would say that everyone goes to heaven, just not "bad" people. It's a comfortable, squishy, cute idea.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The reason why there are so few atheists is probably a combination of things. First, many people only believe in God (or say they do anyway) to avoid social judgment of questioning the existence of God. These people don't really believe in God, they would agree to worship satan each week if there was a church close-by that all their friends and family attended. |
So you don't think that the comfort of the afterlife is an issue? The idea of god is comfortable. Most believers in god would say that everyone goes to heaven, just not "bad" people. It's a comfortable, squishy, cute idea.
Finally, some people ARE independent thinkers and have enough faith in their own rational understanding of things to seriously doubt if such an entity as God exists. However, some of these people may arrive at spiritual or ethical conundrums that lead them to choose to embrace the idea of God and study theology as a means of creating direction in their lives, which have otherwise fallen into moral confusion as a result of relativism. In that case, faith in God is more a means to peace of mind than a sense of evidence that God exists as an entity outside themselves.
"Rational thinking" and "studying theology" are incompatible statements. What ethical question could possibly drive anyone to believe in god?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 26 2009, 11:26 PM)
That's completely wrong. One, religion allows you to get away with just as much with the concept of "forgiveness." You could kill someone and just ask god to forgive you afterward. Two, atheists are LESS likely to commit crimes thanks to their primary demographic of smart, educated people.
I've heard people say this more often about "forgiveness." In fact, forgiveness in Christianity comes at the price of committing oneself to redemption. You can't sin, pray forgiveness, and go on sinning. You have to make an honest effort to resist next time. Furthermore, praying forgiveness involves sincerely admitting and regretting what you have done wrong. Compare this to people who live in denial of wrongdoing or harm they cause others, and express only superficial regret as a means to achieving social forgiveness and approval of other (people). When one truly believes in God, there is no such thing as insincere manipulation, because you know you can't fool the all-knowing.
I think you're basing this on the evangelism you come in contact with, either on TV or elsewhere. These "hotbed" topics are easy ways to engage people's interest and debate, which gives Christians an opening to teach people about what is sinful about sin and why. These things may or may not be actually sinful (i.e. harmful) but the relevant issue is not so much whether but how and why.
I think you're basing this on the evangelism you come in contact with, either on TV or elsewhere. These "hotbed" topics are easy ways to engage people's interest and debate, which gives Christians an opening to teach people about what is sinful about sin and why. These things may or may not be actually sinful (i.e. harmful) but the relevant issue is not so much whether but how and why.
So you don't think that the comfort of the afterlife is an issue? The idea of god is comfortable. Most believers in god would say that everyone goes to heaven, just not "bad" people. It's a comfortable, squishy, cute idea.
Eternal life can be a comfort or a motivation to change, depending on whether you expect salvation and grace or suffering. My guess would be that many atheists also take comfort in the faith that they terminate permanently and absolutely when the body dies. Those that don't take comfort are the ones who have really begun to reflect on what accepting death as an ultimate end really means. The way you conceptualize death influences they way you approach life, and many atheists are still in the stage of thinking, "my life is getting shorter by the day, better live it up while I still can because when I'm dead my chance will be over." When a Christian approaches death as a transition into a new life, s/he knows that the way s/he approached life will determine what life will be like after death.
I disagree with the squishy believers in God. I think these people fail to heed all the warnings about the consequences of sin. They may think that asking for forgiveness is an automatic ticket to heaven, but it's just the first step toward redemption, which entails a difficult process of resisting temptation to sin further.
What is irrational about thinking, "if I break the commandments, my conscience will suffer with pain of guilt. I will fall out of God's grace and into shame. I will suffer in that state terribly until I pray forgiveness and sincerely begin to reform my actions"? This is exactly the kind of rational thinking we expect of people in prison for secular crimes. Why wouldn't you expect it to work the same way for sinners who have only their conscience and God to answer to?
I've heard people say this more often about "forgiveness." In fact, forgiveness in Christianity comes at the price of committing oneself to redemption. You can't sin, pray forgiveness, and go on sinning. You have to make an honest effort to resist next time. Furthermore, praying forgiveness involves sincerely admitting and regretting what you have done wrong. Compare this to people who live in denial of wrongdoing or harm they cause others, and express only superficial regret as a means to achieving social forgiveness and approval of other (people). When one truly believes in God, there is no such thing as insincere manipulation, because you know you can't fool the all-knowing.
QUOTE
Thirdly, most of the "sins" that Christians get the most worked up about are the ones that hurt no-one (e.g. masturbation, homosexuality, political liberalism, etc etc).
I think you're basing this on the evangelism you come in contact with, either on TV or elsewhere. These "hotbed" topics are easy ways to engage people's interest and debate, which gives Christians an opening to teach people about what is sinful about sin and why. These things may or may not be actually sinful (i.e. harmful) but the relevant issue is not so much whether but how and why.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thirdly, most of the "sins" that Christians get the most worked up about are the ones that hurt no-one (e.g. masturbation, homosexuality, political liberalism, etc etc). |
I think you're basing this on the evangelism you come in contact with, either on TV or elsewhere. These "hotbed" topics are easy ways to engage people's interest and debate, which gives Christians an opening to teach people about what is sinful about sin and why. These things may or may not be actually sinful (i.e. harmful) but the relevant issue is not so much whether but how and why.
So you don't think that the comfort of the afterlife is an issue? The idea of god is comfortable. Most believers in god would say that everyone goes to heaven, just not "bad" people. It's a comfortable, squishy, cute idea.
Eternal life can be a comfort or a motivation to change, depending on whether you expect salvation and grace or suffering. My guess would be that many atheists also take comfort in the faith that they terminate permanently and absolutely when the body dies. Those that don't take comfort are the ones who have really begun to reflect on what accepting death as an ultimate end really means. The way you conceptualize death influences they way you approach life, and many atheists are still in the stage of thinking, "my life is getting shorter by the day, better live it up while I still can because when I'm dead my chance will be over." When a Christian approaches death as a transition into a new life, s/he knows that the way s/he approached life will determine what life will be like after death.
I disagree with the squishy believers in God. I think these people fail to heed all the warnings about the consequences of sin. They may think that asking for forgiveness is an automatic ticket to heaven, but it's just the first step toward redemption, which entails a difficult process of resisting temptation to sin further.
QUOTE
"Rational thinking" and "studying theology" are incompatible statements. What ethical question could possibly drive anyone to believe in god?
What is irrational about thinking, "if I break the commandments, my conscience will suffer with pain of guilt. I will fall out of God's grace and into shame. I will suffer in that state terribly until I pray forgiveness and sincerely begin to reform my actions"? This is exactly the kind of rational thinking we expect of people in prison for secular crimes. Why wouldn't you expect it to work the same way for sinners who have only their conscience and God to answer to?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 26 2009, 08:34 PM)
I think you're basing this on the evangelism you come in contact with, either on TV or elsewhere. These "hotbed" topics are easy ways to engage people's interest and debate, which gives Christians an opening to teach people about what is sinful about sin and why. These things may or may not be actually sinful (i.e. harmful) but the relevant issue is not so much whether but how and why.
People know what is right and wrong just by living in society. Christianity is trying (and failing) to bring back an older and more conservative moral worldview. Christians seem to often forget that they are in the majority in this country, and think that they need to fight the heathen majority in order to protect their religious rights. In fact, Christianity has overstepped its boundaries on numerous occasions, especially when they have injected religious speech into the political arena.
Believing that the next world will be better is dangerous. One, people are more likely to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs if they think they are going to heaven. Two, people are more willing to live a shitty life if they think they will be rewarded in the next one. There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
Believing that the next world will be better is dangerous. One, people are more likely to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs if they think they are going to heaven. Two, people are more willing to live a shitty life if they think they will be rewarded in the next one. There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
What is irrational about thinking, "if I break the commandments, my conscience will suffer with pain of guilt.
Do you feel guilt after thinking "Wow, that is a hot piece of @ss!" when you see an attractive (married) woman?
People know what is right and wrong just by living in society. Christianity is trying (and failing) to bring back an older and more conservative moral worldview. Christians seem to often forget that they are in the majority in this country, and think that they need to fight the heathen majority in order to protect their religious rights. In fact, Christianity has overstepped its boundaries on numerous occasions, especially when they have injected religious speech into the political arena.
QUOTE
Eternal life can be a comfort or a motivation to change, depending on whether you expect salvation and grace or suffering. My guess would be that many atheists also take comfort in the faith that they terminate permanently and absolutely when the body dies. Those that don't take comfort are the ones who have really begun to reflect on what accepting death as an ultimate end really means. The way you conceptualize death influences they way you approach life, and many atheists are still in the stage of thinking, "my life is getting shorter by the day, better live it up while I still can because when I'm dead my chance will be over." When a Christian approaches death as a transition into a new life, s/he knows that the way s/he approached life will determine what life will be like after death.
Believing that the next world will be better is dangerous. One, people are more likely to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs if they think they are going to heaven. Two, people are more willing to live a shitty life if they think they will be rewarded in the next one. There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Eternal life can be a comfort or a motivation to change, depending on whether you expect salvation and grace or suffering. My guess would be that many atheists also take comfort in the faith that they terminate permanently and absolutely when the body dies. Those that don't take comfort are the ones who have really begun to reflect on what accepting death as an ultimate end really means. The way you conceptualize death influences they way you approach life, and many atheists are still in the stage of thinking, "my life is getting shorter by the day, better live it up while I still can because when I'm dead my chance will be over." When a Christian approaches death as a transition into a new life, s/he knows that the way s/he approached life will determine what life will be like after death. |
Believing that the next world will be better is dangerous. One, people are more likely to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs if they think they are going to heaven. Two, people are more willing to live a shitty life if they think they will be rewarded in the next one. There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
What is irrational about thinking, "if I break the commandments, my conscience will suffer with pain of guilt.
Do you feel guilt after thinking "Wow, that is a hot piece of @ss!" when you see an attractive (married) woman?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 12:50 AM)
People know what is right and wrong just by living in society. Christianity is trying (and failing) to bring back an older and more conservative moral worldview. Christians seem to often forget that they are in the majority in this country, and think that they need to fight the heathen majority in order to protect their religious rights. In fact, Christianity has overstepped its boundaries on numerous occasions, especially when they have injected religious speech into the political arena.
To me, as a Christian, this is not an issue of majority or overstepping boundaries. Christianity is about recognizing higher truth and speaking it in an effort to improve others. Christ himself preached mainly to Israelites, trying to convince them that they were sinners and needed to be born again. From one perspective, the crucifixion was a response to Christ's overstepping of boundaries when he refused to recognize Caesar's authority, or orthodox Jewish authority, as supreme. He was given a crown of thorns as a sarcastic gesture toward his failure to recognize established political and religious authority.
But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves. They go to heaven by recognizing Christ's sacrifice and accepting the salvation that comes with understanding it.
But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves. They go to heaven by recognizing Christ's sacrifice and accepting the salvation that comes with understanding it.
Two, people are more willing to live a shitty life if they think they will be rewarded in the next one. There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
Most (good) religions I know of involve various forms of self-denial intended to detach people from worldly or material attachments and raise their experience of spiritual joy. It's not just about being rewarded after death. The idea is that you can get more of a taste of heaven on Earth be experiencing what it would/will be like to live without being mired in the desires and attachments of the flesh/body, with all the frustrations and pains that come with them.
It's the reality you have faith in, without any observed data to go on. No one has reported back after death, unless you count near death experiences, which tend to generate more spiritual awareness in the survivors.
It's the reality you have faith in, without any observed data to go on. No one has reported back after death, unless you count near death experiences, which tend to generate more spiritual awareness in the survivors.
Do you feel guilt after thinking "Wow, that is a hot piece of @ss!" when you see an attractive (married) woman?
return question: do you ever think about how you would feel if someone thought that while checking out your girlfriend/wife?" Even if it wouldn't/doesn't bother you, don't you think it's mean for you to disrespect or discount someone's feelings who is bothered by it?
If you read the bible, the sexual sins are mostly explained in terms of what they do to the people lusting. I forget which book, but someone says that "it's better to marry than to burn," which I interpret "burning" as "burning with lust." The concern with monogamy, I think, is that by making a lifelong commitment to someone you avoid hurting people or tempting them into envy, hate, etc. when you leave them for someone else. Jealousy is a sin, but tempting people to sin, when you do it intentionally especially, is also a sin. Resisting temptation is a virtue, and this could mean resisting it when you receive it, or resisting it when you are sending it.
If you read the bible in good faith, there's no need to heed everything without understanding it, although it is probably wiser to do so to play it safe. It's better, though, to read it as a guide to reflect on what might be harmful to yourself or others and why. Basically, by studying theology you can become more ethical and mindful of how your actions affect others and yourself, including your spiritual "health."
To me, as a Christian, this is not an issue of majority or overstepping boundaries. Christianity is about recognizing higher truth and speaking it in an effort to improve others. Christ himself preached mainly to Israelites, trying to convince them that they were sinners and needed to be born again. From one perspective, the crucifixion was a response to Christ's overstepping of boundaries when he refused to recognize Caesar's authority, or orthodox Jewish authority, as supreme. He was given a crown of thorns as a sarcastic gesture toward his failure to recognize established political and religious authority.
QUOTE
Believing that the next world will be better is dangerous. One, people are more likely to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs if they think they are going to heaven.
But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves. They go to heaven by recognizing Christ's sacrifice and accepting the salvation that comes with understanding it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Believing that the next world will be better is dangerous. One, people are more likely to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs if they think they are going to heaven. |
But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves. They go to heaven by recognizing Christ's sacrifice and accepting the salvation that comes with understanding it.
Two, people are more willing to live a shitty life if they think they will be rewarded in the next one. There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
Most (good) religions I know of involve various forms of self-denial intended to detach people from worldly or material attachments and raise their experience of spiritual joy. It's not just about being rewarded after death. The idea is that you can get more of a taste of heaven on Earth be experiencing what it would/will be like to live without being mired in the desires and attachments of the flesh/body, with all the frustrations and pains that come with them.
QUOTE
There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality.
It's the reality you have faith in, without any observed data to go on. No one has reported back after death, unless you count near death experiences, which tend to generate more spiritual awareness in the survivors.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no comfort in the idea that this life is the only life, it's just reality. |
It's the reality you have faith in, without any observed data to go on. No one has reported back after death, unless you count near death experiences, which tend to generate more spiritual awareness in the survivors.
Do you feel guilt after thinking "Wow, that is a hot piece of @ss!" when you see an attractive (married) woman?
return question: do you ever think about how you would feel if someone thought that while checking out your girlfriend/wife?" Even if it wouldn't/doesn't bother you, don't you think it's mean for you to disrespect or discount someone's feelings who is bothered by it?
If you read the bible, the sexual sins are mostly explained in terms of what they do to the people lusting. I forget which book, but someone says that "it's better to marry than to burn," which I interpret "burning" as "burning with lust." The concern with monogamy, I think, is that by making a lifelong commitment to someone you avoid hurting people or tempting them into envy, hate, etc. when you leave them for someone else. Jealousy is a sin, but tempting people to sin, when you do it intentionally especially, is also a sin. Resisting temptation is a virtue, and this could mean resisting it when you receive it, or resisting it when you are sending it.
If you read the bible in good faith, there's no need to heed everything without understanding it, although it is probably wiser to do so to play it safe. It's better, though, to read it as a guide to reflect on what might be harmful to yourself or others and why. Basically, by studying theology you can become more ethical and mindful of how your actions affect others and yourself, including your spiritual "health."
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 26 2009, 10:47 PM)
To me, as a Christian, this is not an issue of majority or overstepping boundaries. Christianity is about recognizing higher truth and speaking it in an effort to improve others. Christ himself preached mainly to Israelites, trying to convince them that they were sinners and needed to be born again. From one perspective, the crucifixion was a response to Christ's overstepping of boundaries when he refused to recognize Caesar's authority, or orthodox Jewish authority, as supreme. He was given a crown of thorns as a sarcastic gesture toward his failure to recognize established political and religious authority.
I was referring to the current tendency of conservative politicians to highlight their religious views in an attempt to get votes. It works.
Ever read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? It wasn't not uncommon for Christians to sacrifice themselves when they had the opportunity to recant and live another day.
Ever read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? It wasn't not uncommon for Christians to sacrifice themselves when they had the opportunity to recant and live another day.
Most (good) religions I know of involve various forms of self-denial intended to detach people from worldly or material attachments and raise their experience of spiritual joy. It's not just about being rewarded after death. The idea is that you can get more of a taste of heaven on Earth be experiencing what it would/will be like to live without being mired in the desires and attachments of the flesh/body, with all the frustrations and pains that come with them.
I was referring to historical situations where religion was used to keep people from rising up and killing their oppressive overlords.
The fact that no-one has reported back supports the idea that there is no afterlife. Aside from that, existence after death is a scientific impossibility.
The fact that no-one has reported back supports the idea that there is no afterlife. Aside from that, existence after death is a scientific impossibility.
return question: do you ever think about how you would feel if someone thought that while checking out your girlfriend/wife?" Even if it wouldn't/doesn't bother you, don't you think it's mean for you to disrespect or discount someone's feelings who is bothered by it?
It wouldn't really affect me either way, though I have to say that it's good for the ego to know that your mate is attractive to other people besides yourself. You can pick a million things to be offended by, it's not my job to keep track of them.
The bible represents an outdated model of morality. It is, in other words, obsolete. Its lessons belong to an ancient era, and do not translate 100%. Some things will never change, but some things change as understanding increases. For example, we can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, because we now know that it is not a choice, and it cannot be renounced, as much as Ted Haggard would prefer otherwise.
It's amusing that most people don't recognize that this attitude is not necessarily a Christian one but is more Gnostic in origin.
Gnosticism is a very complex subject, a religious and philosophical belief that may in fact predate Christianity but which was developed alongside it.. and was very influential in it. Many (if not most) historians see a certain amount of Gnostic thought and philosophy in the NT, particularly in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
In a nutshell, one of the Gnostic beliefs was that the physical world had not been created by God but by an evil entity known as the Demiurge. Basically Satan if you will. Enjoyment of the physical world led people away from the spiritual realm of God and towards the evil of Satan. Ergo, enjoying the physical world meant being trapped by evil.
Much of the puritanism and dislike of the pleasures of the flesh that you find in various Christian beliefs may in fact stem from this source.
Note the speculative nature of the above conclusions.
It's very difficult to determine what originates from what from that time period but I think that there is some room to speculate on this subject.
I was referring to the current tendency of conservative politicians to highlight their religious views in an attempt to get votes. It works.
QUOTE
But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves. They go to heaven by recognizing Christ's sacrifice and accepting the salvation that comes with understanding it.
Ever read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? It wasn't not uncommon for Christians to sacrifice themselves when they had the opportunity to recant and live another day.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves. They go to heaven by recognizing Christ's sacrifice and accepting the salvation that comes with understanding it. |
Ever read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? It wasn't not uncommon for Christians to sacrifice themselves when they had the opportunity to recant and live another day.
Most (good) religions I know of involve various forms of self-denial intended to detach people from worldly or material attachments and raise their experience of spiritual joy. It's not just about being rewarded after death. The idea is that you can get more of a taste of heaven on Earth be experiencing what it would/will be like to live without being mired in the desires and attachments of the flesh/body, with all the frustrations and pains that come with them.
I was referring to historical situations where religion was used to keep people from rising up and killing their oppressive overlords.
QUOTE
It's the reality you have faith in, without any observed data to go on. No one has reported back after death, unless you count near death experiences, which tend to generate more spiritual awareness in the survivors.
The fact that no-one has reported back supports the idea that there is no afterlife. Aside from that, existence after death is a scientific impossibility.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's the reality you have faith in, without any observed data to go on. No one has reported back after death, unless you count near death experiences, which tend to generate more spiritual awareness in the survivors. |
The fact that no-one has reported back supports the idea that there is no afterlife. Aside from that, existence after death is a scientific impossibility.
return question: do you ever think about how you would feel if someone thought that while checking out your girlfriend/wife?" Even if it wouldn't/doesn't bother you, don't you think it's mean for you to disrespect or discount someone's feelings who is bothered by it?
It wouldn't really affect me either way, though I have to say that it's good for the ego to know that your mate is attractive to other people besides yourself. You can pick a million things to be offended by, it's not my job to keep track of them.
The bible represents an outdated model of morality. It is, in other words, obsolete. Its lessons belong to an ancient era, and do not translate 100%. Some things will never change, but some things change as understanding increases. For example, we can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, because we now know that it is not a choice, and it cannot be renounced, as much as Ted Haggard would prefer otherwise.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 02:47 AM)
But in Christianity people can't go to heaven for sacrificing themselves.
So, what you're saying is - Jesus and a whole buncha saints have been refused entry to this fictional Heaven place ..... that's gonna plss them off, good and proper!
So, what you're saying is - Jesus and a whole buncha saints have been refused entry to this fictional Heaven place ..... that's gonna plss them off, good and proper!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 03:07 AM)
some things change as understanding increases.
That clearly explains the ever diminishing numbers of mindless flock come the Sunday congregation. Here in the UK, churches are closing down their filthy business @ a most satisfactory rate
.... one hopes this ugly practice will one day, be merely a thing of the horrendously ignorant past.
That clearly explains the ever diminishing numbers of mindless flock come the Sunday congregation. Here in the UK, churches are closing down their filthy business @ a most satisfactory rate
.... one hopes this ugly practice will one day, be merely a thing of the horrendously ignorant past.
QUOTE
Most (good) religions I know of involve various forms of self-denial intended to detach people from worldly or material attachments and raise their experience of spiritual joy. It's not just about being rewarded after death. The idea is that you can get more of a taste of heaven on Earth be experiencing what it would/will be like to live without being mired in the desires and attachments of the flesh/body, with all the frustrations and pains that come with them.
It's amusing that most people don't recognize that this attitude is not necessarily a Christian one but is more Gnostic in origin.
Gnosticism is a very complex subject, a religious and philosophical belief that may in fact predate Christianity but which was developed alongside it.. and was very influential in it. Many (if not most) historians see a certain amount of Gnostic thought and philosophy in the NT, particularly in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
In a nutshell, one of the Gnostic beliefs was that the physical world had not been created by God but by an evil entity known as the Demiurge. Basically Satan if you will. Enjoyment of the physical world led people away from the spiritual realm of God and towards the evil of Satan. Ergo, enjoying the physical world meant being trapped by evil.
Much of the puritanism and dislike of the pleasures of the flesh that you find in various Christian beliefs may in fact stem from this source.
Note the speculative nature of the above conclusions.
It's very difficult to determine what originates from what from that time period but I think that there is some room to speculate on this subject.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
The comfort in atheism is the idea that an individual can get away with anything if they don't get caught by human authorities. God is the idea that you can't ultimately hide or lie about anything you've done in life. You will eventually be judged. This prospect is extremely uncomfortable to people who have something to fear at the moment of judgment.
Except..people have their God built in their own image and hence has the same moral values as them. They have nothing to fear from their God.
They can get away with even mass murder with their God gladly approving of it.
Except..people have their God built in their own image and hence has the same moral values as them. They have nothing to fear from their God.
They can get away with even mass murder with their God gladly approving of it.
There is little (if anything) that can be learned from any religion which cannot be gleaned from an equal (or perhaps lesser) secular study of humanity.
Most religions discourage a full understanding of other religions. Secular study includes learning aspects of all philosophical thought. Xtianity in general practice is the least tolerant of other ideas.
We don't need some mythical deity to write ten rules down on some stone tablets to know that doing such things aren't necessarily positives for humans to succeed at life. Common sense pretty much covers all that anyway.
Most religions discourage a full understanding of other religions. Secular study includes learning aspects of all philosophical thought. Xtianity in general practice is the least tolerant of other ideas.
We don't need some mythical deity to write ten rules down on some stone tablets to know that doing such things aren't necessarily positives for humans to succeed at life. Common sense pretty much covers all that anyway.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 03:07 AM)
I was referring to historical situations where religion was used to keep people from rising up and killing their oppressive overlords.
It wouldn't really affect me either way, though I have to say that it's good for the ego to know that your mate is attractive to other people besides yourself. You can pick a million things to be offended by, it's not my job to keep track of them.
The bible represents an outdated model of morality. It is, in other words, obsolete. Its lessons belong to an ancient era, and do not translate 100%. Some things will never change, but some things change as understanding increases. For example, we can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, because we now know that it is not a choice, and it cannot be renounced, as much as Ted Haggard would prefer otherwise.
Whenever religion is used by one or more individuals to manipulate others into submission, this is akin to Lucifer using God's power to achieve his own dominion. The purpose of spreading theology is to enlighten, not take advantage of people in the darkness. . . but killing oppressive overlords is also not exactly the ideal way to deal with the sin of worldly authority and domination. Thank Christ for forgiveness.
The fact that dark-matter is not visible supports the idea that there is no "dark" matter.
That's a comparative analogy, but the relevant point is that eternal life is an approach to spiritual life of a living person. In spirituality, physical phenomena are approached on the basis of their meaning within spiritual experience. So, for example, death is not treated as the cessation of organs, but rather as the prospect of a terminal spirit. A spirit that anticipates its own termination is like a market anticipating a crash - the anticipation causes sales, which flood the market, which lowers the equilibrium price, which causes the crash. A spirit that anticipates eternal life practices sustainable subjectivity and life-experiences, hence the positive effect of an eternal-life belief on the life-practices of the living.
The fact that dark-matter is not visible supports the idea that there is no "dark" matter.
That's a comparative analogy, but the relevant point is that eternal life is an approach to spiritual life of a living person. In spirituality, physical phenomena are approached on the basis of their meaning within spiritual experience. So, for example, death is not treated as the cessation of organs, but rather as the prospect of a terminal spirit. A spirit that anticipates its own termination is like a market anticipating a crash - the anticipation causes sales, which flood the market, which lowers the equilibrium price, which causes the crash. A spirit that anticipates eternal life practices sustainable subjectivity and life-experiences, hence the positive effect of an eternal-life belief on the life-practices of the living.
It wouldn't really affect me either way, though I have to say that it's good for the ego to know that your mate is attractive to other people besides yourself. You can pick a million things to be offended by, it's not my job to keep track of them.
Thick skin your coping mechanism, eh? The issue isn't so much whether it offends you, it is the temptation of a married woman or man to stray. The sin of straying is not the love that is shared between the unfaithful spouse and the stranger - it is the harm and hurt this causes for the betrayed partner.
Translatability is not a quality inherent in the text; it lies in the skill of the interpreter. Personally, my favorite thing about Islam, of what little I know, is that all translations of the Koran are regarded as interpretations. This overcomes the issue of accuracy in translation.
Translatability is not a quality inherent in the text; it lies in the skill of the interpreter. Personally, my favorite thing about Islam, of what little I know, is that all translations of the Koran are regarded as interpretations. This overcomes the issue of accuracy in translation.
Some things will never change, but some things change as understanding increases. For example, we can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, because we now know that it is not a choice, and it cannot be renounced, as much as Ted Haggard would prefer otherwise.
Understanding homosexuality is a hot area of theology these days. Everyone has an opinion and interpretations of scripture to go with it. My interpretation of Christian approaches to sexuality and sexual sin, which attempt to avoid homophobic discrimination without automatically sanctifying homosexuality uncritically is the following:
Homosexuality is regarded as a sin in the bible, but it is not regarded as a graver sin than other sexual sins, such as heterosexual fornication, other forms of sex that don't contribute to the overall project of having children within a relationship. To the extent that individuals in a homosexual marriage can adopt or find a sperm-donor, it could be argued that the sexual union is a necessary expression of love that helps create the loving family environment that nurtures children's emotional development. On the other hand, it could be argued that sexual addiction within marriage, hetero or homo, takes away from the higher spiritual life of parents and their children by keeping them focussed on the flesh. Both positions are defensible, and perhaps some balance is the solution.
When apostle Paul, or whoever it was, says that it is better to marry than to burn (with lust), I don't see why this wouldn't apply to homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. If someone is burning with lust for someone of the same sex, then it is probably better and healthier, spiritually as well as physiologically, to commit to a loving monogamous relationship that to either burn in lustful abstinence or gorge themselves on multiple partners or serial monogamy.
One trend that I have seen that disturbs me is the pro-homo culture of wholly undermining the bible as a book that contains sexism, racism, slavery-apologism, etc. These things are undeniably present, but they are correctable through constructive interpretations. The danger in dispensing with the book completely because of these weaknesses is that much potentially beneficial knowledge would be lost. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
It wouldn't really affect me either way, though I have to say that it's good for the ego to know that your mate is attractive to other people besides yourself. You can pick a million things to be offended by, it's not my job to keep track of them.
The bible represents an outdated model of morality. It is, in other words, obsolete. Its lessons belong to an ancient era, and do not translate 100%. Some things will never change, but some things change as understanding increases. For example, we can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, because we now know that it is not a choice, and it cannot be renounced, as much as Ted Haggard would prefer otherwise.
Whenever religion is used by one or more individuals to manipulate others into submission, this is akin to Lucifer using God's power to achieve his own dominion. The purpose of spreading theology is to enlighten, not take advantage of people in the darkness. . . but killing oppressive overlords is also not exactly the ideal way to deal with the sin of worldly authority and domination. Thank Christ for forgiveness.
QUOTE
The fact that no-one has reported back supports the idea that there is no afterlife. Aside from that, existence after death is a scientific impossibility.
The fact that dark-matter is not visible supports the idea that there is no "dark" matter.
That's a comparative analogy, but the relevant point is that eternal life is an approach to spiritual life of a living person. In spirituality, physical phenomena are approached on the basis of their meaning within spiritual experience. So, for example, death is not treated as the cessation of organs, but rather as the prospect of a terminal spirit. A spirit that anticipates its own termination is like a market anticipating a crash - the anticipation causes sales, which flood the market, which lowers the equilibrium price, which causes the crash. A spirit that anticipates eternal life practices sustainable subjectivity and life-experiences, hence the positive effect of an eternal-life belief on the life-practices of the living.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that no-one has reported back supports the idea that there is no afterlife. Aside from that, existence after death is a scientific impossibility. |
The fact that dark-matter is not visible supports the idea that there is no "dark" matter.
That's a comparative analogy, but the relevant point is that eternal life is an approach to spiritual life of a living person. In spirituality, physical phenomena are approached on the basis of their meaning within spiritual experience. So, for example, death is not treated as the cessation of organs, but rather as the prospect of a terminal spirit. A spirit that anticipates its own termination is like a market anticipating a crash - the anticipation causes sales, which flood the market, which lowers the equilibrium price, which causes the crash. A spirit that anticipates eternal life practices sustainable subjectivity and life-experiences, hence the positive effect of an eternal-life belief on the life-practices of the living.
It wouldn't really affect me either way, though I have to say that it's good for the ego to know that your mate is attractive to other people besides yourself. You can pick a million things to be offended by, it's not my job to keep track of them.
Thick skin your coping mechanism, eh? The issue isn't so much whether it offends you, it is the temptation of a married woman or man to stray. The sin of straying is not the love that is shared between the unfaithful spouse and the stranger - it is the harm and hurt this causes for the betrayed partner.
QUOTE
The bible represents an outdated model of morality. It is, in other words, obsolete. Its lessons belong to an ancient era, and do not translate 100%.
Translatability is not a quality inherent in the text; it lies in the skill of the interpreter. Personally, my favorite thing about Islam, of what little I know, is that all translations of the Koran are regarded as interpretations. This overcomes the issue of accuracy in translation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The bible represents an outdated model of morality. It is, in other words, obsolete. Its lessons belong to an ancient era, and do not translate 100%. |
Translatability is not a quality inherent in the text; it lies in the skill of the interpreter. Personally, my favorite thing about Islam, of what little I know, is that all translations of the Koran are regarded as interpretations. This overcomes the issue of accuracy in translation.
Some things will never change, but some things change as understanding increases. For example, we can no longer condemn homosexuality as a sin, because we now know that it is not a choice, and it cannot be renounced, as much as Ted Haggard would prefer otherwise.
Understanding homosexuality is a hot area of theology these days. Everyone has an opinion and interpretations of scripture to go with it. My interpretation of Christian approaches to sexuality and sexual sin, which attempt to avoid homophobic discrimination without automatically sanctifying homosexuality uncritically is the following:
Homosexuality is regarded as a sin in the bible, but it is not regarded as a graver sin than other sexual sins, such as heterosexual fornication, other forms of sex that don't contribute to the overall project of having children within a relationship. To the extent that individuals in a homosexual marriage can adopt or find a sperm-donor, it could be argued that the sexual union is a necessary expression of love that helps create the loving family environment that nurtures children's emotional development. On the other hand, it could be argued that sexual addiction within marriage, hetero or homo, takes away from the higher spiritual life of parents and their children by keeping them focussed on the flesh. Both positions are defensible, and perhaps some balance is the solution.
When apostle Paul, or whoever it was, says that it is better to marry than to burn (with lust), I don't see why this wouldn't apply to homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. If someone is burning with lust for someone of the same sex, then it is probably better and healthier, spiritually as well as physiologically, to commit to a loving monogamous relationship that to either burn in lustful abstinence or gorge themselves on multiple partners or serial monogamy.
One trend that I have seen that disturbs me is the pro-homo culture of wholly undermining the bible as a book that contains sexism, racism, slavery-apologism, etc. These things are undeniably present, but they are correctable through constructive interpretations. The danger in dispensing with the book completely because of these weaknesses is that much potentially beneficial knowledge would be lost. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 11:24 AM)
That's a comparative analogy, but the relevant point is that eternal life is an approach to spiritual life of a living person. In spirituality, physical phenomena are approached on the basis of their meaning within spiritual experience. So, for example, death is not treated as the cessation of organs, but rather as the prospect of a terminal spirit. A spirit that anticipates its own termination is like a market anticipating a crash - the anticipation causes sales, which flood the market, which lowers the equilibrium price, which causes the crash. A spirit that anticipates eternal life practices sustainable subjectivity and life-experiences, hence the positive effect of an eternal-life belief on the life-practices of the living.
That's a very dumb and naive thing to say.
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"
You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"
You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
When apostle Paul, or whoever it was, says that it is better to marry than to burn (with lust), I don't see why this wouldn't apply to homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. If someone is burning with lust for someone of the same sex, then it is probably better and healthier, spiritually as well as physiologically, to commit to a loving monogamous relationship that to either burn in lustful abstinence or gorge themselves on multiple partners or serial monogamy.
Then why is it the #1 item on the religious political agenda to prevent gays from marrying?
Then why don't you just throw out all the book except for the gospels? I would say that 99.9% of the bible's "good stuff" is in those 4 books. Why keep the rest?
That's a very dumb and naive thing to say.
QUOTE
Homosexuality is regarded as a sin in the bible, but it is not regarded as a graver sin than other sexual sins, such as heterosexual fornication, other forms of sex that don't contribute to the overall project of having children within a relationship. To the extent that individuals in a homosexual marriage can adopt or find a sperm-donor, it could be argued that the sexual union is a necessary expression of love that helps create the loving family environment that nurtures children's emotional development. On the other hand, it could be argued that sexual addiction within marriage, hetero or homo, takes away from the higher spiritual life of parents and their children by keeping them focussed on the flesh. Both positions are defensible, and perhaps some balance is the solution.
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"
You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Homosexuality is regarded as a sin in the bible, but it is not regarded as a graver sin than other sexual sins, such as heterosexual fornication, other forms of sex that don't contribute to the overall project of having children within a relationship. To the extent that individuals in a homosexual marriage can adopt or find a sperm-donor, it could be argued that the sexual union is a necessary expression of love that helps create the loving family environment that nurtures children's emotional development. On the other hand, it could be argued that sexual addiction within marriage, hetero or homo, takes away from the higher spiritual life of parents and their children by keeping them focussed on the flesh. Both positions are defensible, and perhaps some balance is the solution. |
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"
You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
When apostle Paul, or whoever it was, says that it is better to marry than to burn (with lust), I don't see why this wouldn't apply to homosexuality as well as heterosexuality. If someone is burning with lust for someone of the same sex, then it is probably better and healthier, spiritually as well as physiologically, to commit to a loving monogamous relationship that to either burn in lustful abstinence or gorge themselves on multiple partners or serial monogamy.
Then why is it the #1 item on the religious political agenda to prevent gays from marrying?
QUOTE
One trend that I have seen that disturbs me is the pro-homo culture of wholly undermining the bible as a book that contains sexism, racism, slavery-apologism, etc. These things are undeniably present, but they are correctable through constructive interpretations. The danger in dispensing with the book completely because of these weaknesses is that much potentially beneficial knowledge would be lost. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
Then why don't you just throw out all the book except for the gospels? I would say that 99.9% of the bible's "good stuff" is in those 4 books. Why keep the rest?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 03:24 PM)
Whenever religion is used by one or more individuals to manipulate others into submission, this is akin to Lucifer using God's power to achieve his own dominion.
It seems to me that God's people working against God's people is a sign of Satan's influence. For Protestants to say that Catholics are not Christians and are going to Hell is an example of the sort of thing we've been led to believe he would like. It doesn't mean they could send them to Hell, but the conflict between God's people instead of working together does cause some people who are undecided to put their faith in the idea that God does not exist, or is not worth trying to develop a relationship with. That's what we're told he wants, and the "Satanic Bible" is proof of that if he does exist.
It seems to me that God's people working against God's people is a sign of Satan's influence. For Protestants to say that Catholics are not Christians and are going to Hell is an example of the sort of thing we've been led to believe he would like. It doesn't mean they could send them to Hell, but the conflict between God's people instead of working together does cause some people who are undecided to put their faith in the idea that God does not exist, or is not worth trying to develop a relationship with. That's what we're told he wants, and the "Satanic Bible" is proof of that if he does exist.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 24 2009, 05:51 PM)
Please tell us how any god, alien or not, can grant life after death.
From what we know so far the best guess would be some sort of computer like device, but since we aren't even close to doing it yet we're not really in any position to make a guess. When you think it through it wouldn't work that easily anyway:
If we could clone beings at birth and keep spares around, growing along with us as we do but having no mental experiences, and then at some point transfer the information from the original person's brain into a clone, the clone would think it was the original person but instead it would be a different individual with the same memories which would be false compared to its actual experience. The original person would still be stuck with whatever happens to him/her--dead or crippled or whatever--and there's no way out of it afaik even if we do figure out how to transfer our "selves" into different bodies.
Here's an interesting idiotic set of beliefs: I've encountered people who disbelieve it's possible that God exists, yet they still believe it's possible that we could have life after death.
From what we know so far the best guess would be some sort of computer like device, but since we aren't even close to doing it yet we're not really in any position to make a guess. When you think it through it wouldn't work that easily anyway:
If we could clone beings at birth and keep spares around, growing along with us as we do but having no mental experiences, and then at some point transfer the information from the original person's brain into a clone, the clone would think it was the original person but instead it would be a different individual with the same memories which would be false compared to its actual experience. The original person would still be stuck with whatever happens to him/her--dead or crippled or whatever--and there's no way out of it afaik even if we do figure out how to transfer our "selves" into different bodies.
Here's an interesting idiotic set of beliefs: I've encountered people who disbelieve it's possible that God exists, yet they still believe it's possible that we could have life after death.
QUOTE (vkamath+Sep 24 2009, 06:44 PM)
Is there no Easter Bunny anywhere in the entire universe, and if not how did you find out?
I seriously doubt that any such beings exist "naturally" anywhere in the universe because it seems unlikely they could have evolved in any type of situation I can think of. They may have been created in some places, but it seems most likely to me that they have not. In contrast to that, I believe gods could have developed "naturally" some place(s) in the universe, and it's likely that some have.
I seriously doubt that any such beings exist "naturally" anywhere in the universe because it seems unlikely they could have evolved in any type of situation I can think of. They may have been created in some places, but it seems most likely to me that they have not. In contrast to that, I believe gods could have developed "naturally" some place(s) in the universe, and it's likely that some have.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
You still don't get the comparison...do you?
It's an imaginary comparison that a person trying to think about it realistically would never pretend to actually try to make, since the situations are completely different. We know the EB is bullshit for example, but we can not know whether God is or not. It's amusing that anyone could not appreciate such a huge difference in the two situations, and that any attempt to claim they are similar is 
at "best".
It's an imaginary comparison that a person trying to think about it realistically would never pretend to actually try to make, since the situations are completely different. We know the EB is bullshit for example, but we can not know whether God is or not.
It's amusing that anyone could not appreciate such a huge difference in the two situations, and that any attempt to claim they are similar is at "best".
QUOTE (TinyTree+Sep 25 2009, 10:30 PM)
This seems at first glance to be an impossibility, how could an atheist be promoting faith? The answer he provides is that faith is an actual cognitive function of the brain- a real thing- and to ignore it is to ignore real cognitive function.
That is a good one. Usually supposedly strong atheists amusingly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...the very faith that is NECESSARY in order for them to be a strong atheist. In his book about it, does he dishonestly try to deny the faith that's necessary in order for someone to be a strong atheist 
, or does he point out that it is necessary and that the faith of the strong atheist is no better than faith in any other religious belief? I doubt any atheist would be so honest 
but maybe he was... Was he?
That is a good one. Usually supposedly strong atheists amusingly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...the very faith that is NECESSARY in order for them to be a strong atheist. In his book about it, does he dishonestly try to deny the faith that's necessary in order for someone to be a strong atheist , or does he point out that it is necessary and that the faith of the strong atheist is no better than faith in any other religious belief? I doubt any atheist would be so honest but maybe he was... Was he?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I seriously doubt that any such beings exist "naturally" anywhere in the universe because it seems unlikely they could have evolved in any type of situation I can think of. They may have been created in some places, but it seems most likely to me that they have not.
Are you suggesting that there is a possibility however remote that the Easter Bunny may actually exist is some place in the Universe?
You are so messed up.
Are you suggesting that there is a possibility however remote that the Easter Bunny may actually exist is some place in the Universe?
You are so messed up.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
It's an imaginary comparison that a person trying to think about it realistically would never pretend to actually try to make, since the situations are completely different. We know the EB is bullshit for example, but we can not know whether God is or not. laugh.gif It's amusing that anyone could not appreciate such a huge difference in the two situations, and that any attempt to claim they are similar is wacko.gif at "best".
There is no difference. Both the Easter Bunny and God are imaginary.
There is no difference. Both the Easter Bunny and God are imaginary.
On behalf of the Easter Bunny, who is busy right now gathering eggs, I have to say that I find that last comment deeply offensive.
If the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.... where do those delicious chocolate eggs come from?
I have heard the heretical suggestion that they are manufactured in a factory somewhere but this obviously flies in the face of all observable evidence. Quite frankly I suspect a corporate conspiracy to hide the true facts.
Mmmmmmm.... chocolate...
If the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.... where do those delicious chocolate eggs come from?
I have heard the heretical suggestion that they are manufactured in a factory somewhere but this obviously flies in the face of all observable evidence. Quite frankly I suspect a corporate conspiracy to hide the true facts.
Mmmmmmm.... chocolate...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 04:21 PM)
That's a very dumb and naive thing to say.
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"
You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
Then why is it the #1 item on the religious political agenda to prevent gays from marrying?
Then why don't you just throw out all the book except for the gospels? I would say that 99.9% of the bible's "good stuff" is in those 4 books. Why keep the rest?
what is the point of saying this without grounds?
What does ethnicity have to do with sexuality? You can't help being gay anymore than you can help desiring promiscuity, but you can resist either, and you can discipline your sexuality to be more ethical toward yourself and others.
What does ethnicity have to do with sexuality? You can't help being gay anymore than you can help desiring promiscuity, but you can resist either, and you can discipline your sexuality to be more ethical toward yourself and others.
Then why is it the #1 item on the religious political agenda to prevent gays from marrying?
Some people who call themselves Christians are claiming that only heterosexual marriage should be allowed because children can only be "naturally" produced by heterosexual intercourse. The question is, then, why should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry?
I believe that homophobia comes before Christianity and spirituality generally for many people. They don't reflect on homosexuality from a spiritual point of view, they have a negative visceral reaction, which is part of the culture of heterosexuality, and their religious views are built on top of this feeling, which is not derived from their experience with the holy spirit at all.
Because I never know when some part of it I heretofore thought to be useless will turn out to provide some spiritual or ethical insight. Supposedly, my appendix is useless but it doesn't cost me anything to leave it where it is and, who knows, it might come in handy for something one day.
That is a good one. Usually supposedly strong atheists amusingly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...the very faith that is NECESSARY in order for them to be a strong atheist.
Explain to me what faith is necessary to believe there is no supernatural being(s) that designed the universe and listen to your prayers? Be careful, because I'm more than prepared to absolutely shoot down whatever argument you make.
Your use of "supposedly strong atheist" is ridiculous. I've explained here to more than a couple of you nutters here that that ARE NO LEVELS of atheism. One either IS or ISN'T. Just the same as one is either a theist/deist or not. ANYTHING else is agnosticism.
Not even his own, his Father's only. He was the lamb according to scripture. Careful.
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.
Not even his own, his Father's only. He was the lamb according to scripture. Careful.
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.You might find yourself a believer when you least expect it - but most need it.
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"
You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
Then why is it the #1 item on the religious political agenda to prevent gays from marrying?
Then why don't you just throw out all the book except for the gospels? I would say that 99.9% of the bible's "good stuff" is in those 4 books. Why keep the rest?
what is the point of saying this without grounds?
QUOTE
Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay.
What does ethnicity have to do with sexuality? You can't help being gay anymore than you can help desiring promiscuity, but you can resist either, and you can discipline your sexuality to be more ethical toward yourself and others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would you say that being of African descent is "not regarded as a graver sin than other sins?"You can't help your race, and you can't help being gay. |
What does ethnicity have to do with sexuality? You can't help being gay anymore than you can help desiring promiscuity, but you can resist either, and you can discipline your sexuality to be more ethical toward yourself and others.
Then why is it the #1 item on the religious political agenda to prevent gays from marrying?
Some people who call themselves Christians are claiming that only heterosexual marriage should be allowed because children can only be "naturally" produced by heterosexual intercourse. The question is, then, why should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry?
I believe that homophobia comes before Christianity and spirituality generally for many people. They don't reflect on homosexuality from a spiritual point of view, they have a negative visceral reaction, which is part of the culture of heterosexuality, and their religious views are built on top of this feeling, which is not derived from their experience with the holy spirit at all.
QUOTE
Then why don't you just throw out all the book except for the gospels? I would say that 99.9% of the bible's "good stuff" is in those 4 books. Why keep the rest?
Because I never know when some part of it I heretofore thought to be useless will turn out to provide some spiritual or ethical insight. Supposedly, my appendix is useless but it doesn't cost me anything to leave it where it is and, who knows, it might come in handy for something one day.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 04:39 PM)
What does ethnicity have to do with sexuality? You can't help being gay anymore than you can help desiring promiscuity, but you can resist either, and you can discipline your sexuality to be more ethical toward yourself and others.
You can't resist being gay. Look it up.
Any ethical insight in the old testament is outweighed by the enormous amount of god-sanctioned genocide and murder. For the new testament, the testimony of Paul (the bible's most prolific author) is full of misogyny and homophobia.
You can't resist being gay. Look it up.
QUOTE
Because I never know when some part of it I heretofore thought to be useless will turn out to provide some spiritual or ethical insight. Supposedly, my appendix is useless but it doesn't cost me anything to leave it where it is and, who knows, it might come in handy for something one day.
Any ethical insight in the old testament is outweighed by the enormous amount of god-sanctioned genocide and murder. For the new testament, the testimony of Paul (the bible's most prolific author) is full of misogyny and homophobia.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 27 2009, 08:45 PM)
You can't resist being gay. Look it up.
But you can be gay and resist promiscuity or other unethical or unhealthy sexual practices. And the bible is one source of insight for figuring out why and how you would want to.
You are one of the people who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because a book contains the potential of negative interpretation doesn't mean that it is devoid of positive interpretive potential. The good or evil of the interpretation is in the hands of the reader, although interpretation is not completely free either. But certainly any well-intended passage can be interpreted to instigate evil. So why wouldn't the same be true of cruelly-intended passages being interpreted in the service of good will?
But you can be gay and resist promiscuity or other unethical or unhealthy sexual practices. And the bible is one source of insight for figuring out why and how you would want to.
QUOTE
Any ethical insight in the old testament is outweighed by the enormous amount of god-sanctioned genocide and murder. For the new testament, the testimony of Paul (the bible's most prolific author) is full of misogyny and homophobia.
You are one of the people who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because a book contains the potential of negative interpretation doesn't mean that it is devoid of positive interpretive potential. The good or evil of the interpretation is in the hands of the reader, although interpretation is not completely free either. But certainly any well-intended passage can be interpreted to instigate evil. So why wouldn't the same be true of cruelly-intended passages being interpreted in the service of good will?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 05:14 PM)
You are one of the people who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because a book contains the potential of negative interpretation doesn't mean that it is devoid of positive interpretive potential. The good or evil of the interpretation is in the hands of the reader, although interpretation is not completely free either. But certainly any well-intended passage can be interpreted to instigate evil. So why wouldn't the same be true of cruelly-intended passages being interpreted in the service of good will?
The problem is the people view the bible as an authority on everything. If you want to take what you want out of it, that's fine, but don't expect to get any scientific or historical accuracy out of it. So far, you have preferred the bible's account of creation to the scientific one, which makes me doubt your ability to judge what is ethically sound and what is myth.
You seem to bounce back and forth between different points of view. Is it perhaps that you yourself are trying to decide what you believe?
The problem is the people view the bible as an authority on everything. If you want to take what you want out of it, that's fine, but don't expect to get any scientific or historical accuracy out of it. So far, you have preferred the bible's account of creation to the scientific one, which makes me doubt your ability to judge what is ethically sound and what is myth.
You seem to bounce back and forth between different points of view. Is it perhaps that you yourself are trying to decide what you believe?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 09:14 PM)
But you can be gay and resist promiscuity or other unethical or unhealthy sexual practices. And the bible is one source of insight for figuring out why and how you would want to.
You are one of the people who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because a book contains the potential of negative interpretation doesn't mean that it is devoid of positive interpretive potential. The good or evil of the interpretation is in the hands of the reader, although interpretation is not completely free either. But certainly any well-intended passage can be interpreted to instigate evil. So why wouldn't the same be true of cruelly-intended passages being interpreted in the service of good will?
I get the feeling you have not heard of Humanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
edit It's pretty much what he describes but for some reason calls himself a Christian despite being an Atheist.
You are one of the people who wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because a book contains the potential of negative interpretation doesn't mean that it is devoid of positive interpretive potential. The good or evil of the interpretation is in the hands of the reader, although interpretation is not completely free either. But certainly any well-intended passage can be interpreted to instigate evil. So why wouldn't the same be true of cruelly-intended passages being interpreted in the service of good will?
I get the feeling you have not heard of Humanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
edit It's pretty much what he describes but for some reason calls himself a Christian despite being an Atheist.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 27 2009, 06:10 PM)
That is a good one. Usually supposedly strong atheists amusingly try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...the very faith that is NECESSARY in order for them to be a strong atheist. Explain to me what faith is necessary to believe there is no supernatural being(s) that designed the universe and listen to your prayers? Be careful, because I'm more than prepared to absolutely shoot down whatever argument you make.
Your use of "supposedly strong atheist" is ridiculous. I've explained here to more than a couple of you nutters here that that ARE NO LEVELS of atheism. One either IS or ISN'T. Just the same as one is either a theist/deist or not. ANYTHING else is agnosticism.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 27 2009, 09:29 PM)
I get the feeling you have not heard of Humanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
edit It's pretty much what he describes but for some reason calls himself a Christian despite being an Atheist.
"Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority" - quoted from wikipedia page on humanism cited above.
Part of belief in God is the belief in the possibility of authority beyond any human authority. So theism directly contradicts the perspective that truth is relative to human culture or authority. Christianity talks about "the kingdom of heaven" as being stronger than all kingdoms on Earth. Christians are not supposed to recognize any human authority as superceding the truth revealed to them directly by God through the holy spirit. This is the part of Christ's perspective that got him persecuted so heavily; i.e. his refusal to acknowledge anyone's authority above his own, as communicated to him directly from God.
Let's see what a can of worms this is going to open up on this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
edit It's pretty much what he describes but for some reason calls himself a Christian despite being an Atheist.
"Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority" - quoted from wikipedia page on humanism cited above.
Part of belief in God is the belief in the possibility of authority beyond any human authority. So theism directly contradicts the perspective that truth is relative to human culture or authority. Christianity talks about "the kingdom of heaven" as being stronger than all kingdoms on Earth. Christians are not supposed to recognize any human authority as superceding the truth revealed to them directly by God through the holy spirit. This is the part of Christ's perspective that got him persecuted so heavily; i.e. his refusal to acknowledge anyone's authority above his own, as communicated to him directly from God.
Let's see what a can of worms this is going to open up on this thread.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 27 2009, 10:09 PM)
Explain to me what faith is necessary to believe there is no supernatural being(s) that designed the universe and listen to your prayers? Be careful, because I'm more than prepared to absolutely shoot down whatever argument you make.
Your use of "supposedly strong atheist" is ridiculous. I've explained here to more than a couple of you nutters here that that ARE NO LEVELS of atheism. One either IS or ISN'T. Just the same as one is either a theist/deist or not. ANYTHING else is agnosticism.
People's faith gets tested. Your faith in the absence of God gets tested when you find yourself in a dire situation that you feel a total lack of control over the outcome. Do you pray to God, saying you're sorry for not believing in Him and beg for mercy in your predicament OR do you say, "here's more proof that no God exists and accept whatever pain or consequences you are facing? Some people cave in and give prayer a shot, out of desperation. Others stick to their guns and curse the very idea of God for even giving them the hope that supernatural intervention is possible.
Your faith that no God/god exists may be rational in your current state of mind, but the question is whether your faith will hold up under any predicament, regardless of your emotional state. You might find yourself a believer when you least expect it - but most need it.
Your use of "supposedly strong atheist" is ridiculous. I've explained here to more than a couple of you nutters here that that ARE NO LEVELS of atheism. One either IS or ISN'T. Just the same as one is either a theist/deist or not. ANYTHING else is agnosticism.
People's faith gets tested. Your faith in the absence of God gets tested when you find yourself in a dire situation that you feel a total lack of control over the outcome. Do you pray to God, saying you're sorry for not believing in Him and beg for mercy in your predicament OR do you say, "here's more proof that no God exists and accept whatever pain or consequences you are facing? Some people cave in and give prayer a shot, out of desperation. Others stick to their guns and curse the very idea of God for even giving them the hope that supernatural intervention is possible.
Your faith that no God/god exists may be rational in your current state of mind, but the question is whether your faith will hold up under any predicament, regardless of your emotional state. You might find yourself a believer when you least expect it - but most need it.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 06:45 PM)
People's faith gets tested. Your faith in the absence of God gets tested when you find yourself in a dire situation that you feel a total lack of control over the outcome. Do you pray to God, saying you're sorry for not believing in Him and beg for mercy in your predicament
No.
Maybe that's because they've been conditioned their entire lives to believe in a magical god that will personally intervene whenever a puny human is anxious.
No.
QUOTE
Some people cave in and give prayer a shot, out of desperation. Others stick to their guns and curse the very idea of God for even giving them the hope that supernatural intervention is possible.
Maybe that's because they've been conditioned their entire lives to believe in a magical god that will personally intervene whenever a puny human is anxious.
QUOTE
i.e. his refusal to acknowledge anyone's authority above his own, as communicated to him directly from God.
Not even his own, his Father's only. He was the lamb according to scripture. Careful.
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i.e. his refusal to acknowledge anyone's authority above his own, as communicated to him directly from God. |
Not even his own, his Father's only. He was the lamb according to scripture. Careful.
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.You might find yourself a believer when you least expect it - but most need it.
That's because it is possible for one to actively throw some hope in what he does not believe in, if it comes to the quick; it's really just a humble acknowledgment that we are not at the pinnacle of all there is to know, we do the best with what we can prove, and that we are most likely all wrong anyway - but some more wrong than others. Loosely like when the Cardinal comes to the Pope with the great news that Jesus is on the phone, but then gives him the bad news He's calling from Salt Lake City 
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 27 2009, 11:18 PM)
Not even his own, his Father's only. He was the lamb according to scripture. Careful.
Good point. Christ had completely merged/submitted his mortal will with the will of God. I think this concept is the same one that the word, "Islam," meaning "submission" is based on. It's just hard for a lot of people to conceptualize how a human could totally submit their individual will to something other than their own ego or the authority of another human being. Once you get what that authority is, you understand what is meant by God and the Holy Spirit, imo.
That even within the Bible God is referred to by different names, or aspects of personality. In the Aramaic texts, you just don't read "God", or even "Yhwh", you see various names.
You may like the books by George Lamsa, an Aramaen Christian around the turn of the century, who was permitted to spend much time with the oldest surviving Peshitta texts available. He was a scholar of ancient Aramaic, the greatest of our time, and he was most keen to the meanings and tones of the Aramaic synonyms, homonyms, and common phraseology (idioms, metaphores, etc.) of the times.
Fascinating reading even for atheists/agnostics with a modicum of curiosity. Fundamentalists don't appreciate his translations of a greatly softened, more charitable and forgiving God though...
That even within the Bible God is referred to by different names, or aspects of personality. In the Aramaic texts, you just don't read "God", or even "Yhwh", you see various names.
You may like the books by George Lamsa, an Aramaen Christian around the turn of the century, who was permitted to spend much time with the oldest surviving Peshitta texts available. He was a scholar of ancient Aramaic, the greatest of our time, and he was most keen to the meanings and tones of the Aramaic synonyms, homonyms, and common phraseology (idioms, metaphores, etc.) of the times.
Fascinating reading even for atheists/agnostics with a modicum of curiosity. Fundamentalists don't appreciate his translations of a greatly softened, more charitable and forgiving God though... I suspect that even God's authority is not absolute, because the essence of His being is creative power, which is by definition dynamic instead of static, as would be necessary for such a thing as a fixed, absolute truth to exist.
Which God?
Which God?
And it also happens to be a crime in about 49 states.
Hmmmm.... I think that might be crap too.
How is gay sex illegal if gay marriage isn't? Also...
How is gay sex illegal if gay marriage isn't? Also...
Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (see above).
So... It's not illegal is it.
If your theory of a Godless universe was awaiting falsification, then you would not be so willful in asserting that it is incontrovertible, would you?
But you don't believe in God.
At best you only talk about what people mistake for God.
At worst you redefine God into something you can believe in, and then insist that that is God.
Good point. Christ had completely merged/submitted his mortal will with the will of God. I think this concept is the same one that the word, "Islam," meaning "submission" is based on. It's just hard for a lot of people to conceptualize how a human could totally submit their individual will to something other than their own ego or the authority of another human being. Once you get what that authority is, you understand what is meant by God and the Holy Spirit, imo.
QUOTE
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.
I don't follow the relevance of any of this, nor do I know what versions of the bible you are referring to.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT. |
I don't follow the relevance of any of this, nor do I know what versions of the bible you are referring to.
That's because it is possible for one to actively throw some hope in what he does not believe in, if it comes to the quick; it's really just a humble acknowledgment that we are not at the pinnacle of all there is to know, we do the best with what we can prove, and that we are most likely all wrong anyway - but some more wrong than others.
Well put. Only some people only acknowledge this for themselves, and not other human authorities like judges, heads of state, professors, parents, etc. Some don't even acknowledge it for themselves.
To me the idea of "higher authority" is absolutely essential to having a conception of truth that transcends the authority that asserts it. This is whether you believe in God or not. It is the belief (faith?) that no human is infallible, and every "truth" or "fact" is ultimately susceptible to being superseded by another, eventually. In other words, there exists no absolute authority. I suspect that even God's authority is not absolute, because the essence of His being is creative power, which is by definition dynamic instead of static, as would be necessary for such a thing as a fixed, absolute truth to exist.
Funny - but I think the "second coming" refers to the spiritual resurrection in the experience of believers. So, for example, when Mary finds the empty tomb and then discovers Jesus, thinking he's the gardner, I think this can just as easily be understood as Christ's rebirth WITHIN Mary. She is becoming his body at that moment, and she experiences it as his resurrection. So, in theory, all Christians should be able to experience the resurrection or "second coming" in this way, although it may take them a while to get there.
That's because it is possible for one to actively throw some hope in what he does not believe in, if it comes to the quick; it's really just a humble acknowledgment that we are not at the pinnacle of all there is to know, we do the best with what we can prove, and that we are most likely all wrong anyway - but some more wrong than others.
Well put. Only some people only acknowledge this for themselves, and not other human authorities like judges, heads of state, professors, parents, etc. Some don't even acknowledge it for themselves.
To me the idea of "higher authority" is absolutely essential to having a conception of truth that transcends the authority that asserts it. This is whether you believe in God or not. It is the belief (faith?) that no human is infallible, and every "truth" or "fact" is ultimately susceptible to being superseded by another, eventually. In other words, there exists no absolute authority. I suspect that even God's authority is not absolute, because the essence of His being is creative power, which is by definition dynamic instead of static, as would be necessary for such a thing as a fixed, absolute truth to exist.
QUOTE
Loosely like when the Cardinal comes to the Pope with the great news that Jesus is on the phone, but then gives him the bad news He's calling from Salt Lake City
Funny - but I think the "second coming" refers to the spiritual resurrection in the experience of believers. So, for example, when Mary finds the empty tomb and then discovers Jesus, thinking he's the gardner, I think this can just as easily be understood as Christ's rebirth WITHIN Mary. She is becoming his body at that moment, and she experiences it as his resurrection. So, in theory, all Christians should be able to experience the resurrection or "second coming" in this way, although it may take them a while to get there.
QUOTE
QUOTE
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.
I don't follow the relevance of any of this, nor do I know what versions of the bible you are referring to.
And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT.
I don't follow the relevance of any of this, nor do I know what versions of the bible you are referring to.
That even within the Bible God is referred to by different names, or aspects of personality. In the Aramaic texts, you just don't read "God", or even "Yhwh", you see various names.
You may like the books by George Lamsa, an Aramaen Christian around the turn of the century, who was permitted to spend much time with the oldest surviving Peshitta texts available. He was a scholar of ancient Aramaic, the greatest of our time, and he was most keen to the meanings and tones of the Aramaic synonyms, homonyms, and common phraseology (idioms, metaphores, etc.) of the times.
Fascinating reading even for atheists/agnostics with a modicum of curiosity. Fundamentalists don't appreciate his translations of a greatly softened, more charitable and forgiving God though...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE And not even God was "The Lord God until ~Gen 2:2 - El Shaddei: God the Destroyer. In Gen 1 God was likely El Elyon, or the Most High, later named the God of Melchizedek, one of the most enigmatic persons in the entire OT. I don't follow the relevance of any of this, nor do I know what versions of the bible you are referring to. |
That even within the Bible God is referred to by different names, or aspects of personality. In the Aramaic texts, you just don't read "God", or even "Yhwh", you see various names.
You may like the books by George Lamsa, an Aramaen Christian around the turn of the century, who was permitted to spend much time with the oldest surviving Peshitta texts available. He was a scholar of ancient Aramaic, the greatest of our time, and he was most keen to the meanings and tones of the Aramaic synonyms, homonyms, and common phraseology (idioms, metaphores, etc.) of the times.
Fascinating reading even for atheists/agnostics with a modicum of curiosity. Fundamentalists don't appreciate his translations of a greatly softened, more charitable and forgiving God though... I suspect that even God's authority is not absolute, because the essence of His being is creative power, which is by definition dynamic instead of static, as would be necessary for such a thing as a fixed, absolute truth to exist.
If there is a God: judging by the Universe, Life, evolution, the arising of mind - the state of things is very dynamic. Things are not static, steady, but always in a state of becoming. In this way would I rephrase your comment. Perhaps the 'laws by which...' are absolute, but not meaning rigid; they allow for abundance, they are the blueprint for an ever - becoming. I have no hard and fast faith, but a holographic-style Universe with Minds as active participants, is a far more reasonable take on the future than backwater bad-storybook dogma that flies completely in the face of logic reason and intellect, all of which we have been endowed with either by a God or by natural means.
darkness_up_ the_ought,
Physfan
QUOTE
But you can be gay and resist promiscuity or other unethical or unhealthy sexual practices. And the bible is one source of insight for figuring out why and how you would want to.
What is wrong with promiscuity or gay promiscuity? In itself, it is not a bad thing as long as unhealthy aspects are taken care off. What is an "unethical" sexual practice? The problem with the bible (and all superstitious texts) is that it classifies behaviours for no other reason than some fictitious fairy in the sky is homophobic despite allegedly inventing it. In xians and jews actually practised what the bible tells them, they would put homosexuals to death!Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Sep 28 2009, 03:38 AM)
What is wrong with promiscuity or gay promiscuity?
It violates God's law. And it also happens to be a crime in about 49 states.
It violates God's law. And it also happens to be a crime in about 49 states.
QUOTE
It violates God's law.
Which God?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It violates God's law. |
Which God?
And it also happens to be a crime in about 49 states.
Hmmmm.... I think that might be crap too.
QUOTE
Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states:
* In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed.
* In Maine, same-sex marriages were going to begin on or around September 11, 2009, but due to a people's veto are in flux. A vote on the issue will be on the ballot for November.
* In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.
* In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this period are still recognized.
* In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed.
* In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed.
* In Maine, same-sex marriages were going to begin on or around September 11, 2009, but due to a people's veto are in flux. A vote on the issue will be on the ballot for November.
* In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.
* In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this period are still recognized.
* In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed.
How is gay sex illegal if gay marriage isn't? Also...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Same-sex marriage has been legalized in six of the 50 states: * In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed. * In Maine, same-sex marriages were going to begin on or around September 11, 2009, but due to a people's veto are in flux. A vote on the issue will be on the ballot for November. * In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010. * In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this period are still recognized. * In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed. |
How is gay sex illegal if gay marriage isn't? Also...
Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (see above).
So... It's not illegal is it.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 10:45 PM)
People's faith gets tested. Your faith in the absence of God gets tested when you find yourself in a dire situation that you feel a total lack of control over the outcome. Do you pray to God, saying you're sorry for not believing in Him and beg for mercy in your predicament OR do you say, "here's more proof that no God exists and accept whatever pain or consequences you are facing? Some people cave in and give prayer a shot, out of desperation. Others stick to their guns and curse the very idea of God for even giving them the hope that supernatural intervention is possible.
Your faith that no God/god exists may be rational in your current state of mind, but the question is whether your faith will hold up under any predicament, regardless of your emotional state. You might find yourself a believer when you least expect it - but most need it.
Your response is an abject failure.
You assume that because you cannot deal with the complexities of existence without turning to faith that others cannot.
When I was a child, it occurred to me to beg Yahweh for different outcomes than I was experiencing. But such childish thinking doesn't begin to occur to me as a reasoning adult.
If you continue to insist on using "supposedly strong atheist" and stupidly asserting that atheism uses "faith" then you really should run away from this place as fast as you can.
I have no faith that god(s) don't exist. I consider the mass of scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and the answers it has provided to be incontrovertible. Nothing in that requires faith on my part. Only reasoning. Faith is an action/concept that wholly rejects reason. It is childish in the extreme and those who depend on it for anything need to growthefuckup.
Your faith that no God/god exists may be rational in your current state of mind, but the question is whether your faith will hold up under any predicament, regardless of your emotional state. You might find yourself a believer when you least expect it - but most need it.
Your response is an abject failure.
You assume that because you cannot deal with the complexities of existence without turning to faith that others cannot.
When I was a child, it occurred to me to beg Yahweh for different outcomes than I was experiencing. But such childish thinking doesn't begin to occur to me as a reasoning adult.
If you continue to insist on using "supposedly strong atheist" and stupidly asserting that atheism uses "faith" then you really should run away from this place as fast as you can.
I have no faith that god(s) don't exist. I consider the mass of scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and the answers it has provided to be incontrovertible. Nothing in that requires faith on my part. Only reasoning. Faith is an action/concept that wholly rejects reason. It is childish in the extreme and those who depend on it for anything need to growthefuckup.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Sep 28 2009, 03:48 AM)
It violates God's law. And it also happens to be a crime in about 49 states.
And naturally, your limited view of humanity only includes the 300,000,000 or so people that live in the U.S.
Here (in the same thread) one nutter is talking about surrendering ego to nonexistent sources and a regular nutter is so wrapped up in his nationalistic ego that he can't see beyond his own borders.
Lovely.
And naturally, your limited view of humanity only includes the 300,000,000 or so people that live in the U.S.
Here (in the same thread) one nutter is talking about surrendering ego to nonexistent sources and a regular nutter is so wrapped up in his nationalistic ego that he can't see beyond his own borders.
Lovely.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 28 2009, 07:25 AM)
And naturally, your limited view of humanity only includes the 300,000,000 or so people that live in the U.S.
Here (in the same thread) one nutter is talking about surrendering ego to nonexistent sources and a regular nutter is so wrapped up in his nationalistic ego that he can't see beyond his own borders.
Lovely.
Iran doesn't have to deal that issue according to their leader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
Here (in the same thread) one nutter is talking about surrendering ego to nonexistent sources and a regular nutter is so wrapped up in his nationalistic ego that he can't see beyond his own borders.
Lovely.
Iran doesn't have to deal that issue according to their leader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 28 2009, 07:20 AM)
Your response is an abject failure.
You assume that because you cannot deal with the complexities of existence without turning to faith that others cannot.
When I was a child, it occurred to me to beg Yahweh for different outcomes than I was experiencing. But such childish thinking doesn't begin to occur to me as a reasoning adult.
If you continue to insist on using "supposedly strong atheist" and stupidly asserting that atheism uses "faith" then you really should run away from this place as fast as you can.
I have no faith that god(s) don't exist. I consider the mass of scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and the answers it has provided to be incontrovertible. Nothing in that requires faith on my part. Only reasoning. Faith is an action/concept that wholly rejects reason. It is childish in the extreme and those who depend on it for anything need to growthefuckup.
The tone of your post is what is childishly emotional and reactionary.
I can never understand how so many people who identify themselves with science seem to think that science produces incontrovertible knowledge. Science is the most rigorously skeptical approach to knowledge. Science always holds its own theories to be no better than tentative, as they are always awaiting falsification.
If your theory of a Godless universe was awaiting falsification, then you would not be so willful in asserting that it is incontrovertible, would you? Instead, you seem to have a powerful need or desire to go beyond tentative belief in the non-existence of God. You don't abandon faith in your knowledge, you want ABSOLUTE faith so that you can know INCONTROVERTIBLE truths.
Your mind is less scientific than a God-seeker.
You assume that because you cannot deal with the complexities of existence without turning to faith that others cannot.
When I was a child, it occurred to me to beg Yahweh for different outcomes than I was experiencing. But such childish thinking doesn't begin to occur to me as a reasoning adult.
If you continue to insist on using "supposedly strong atheist" and stupidly asserting that atheism uses "faith" then you really should run away from this place as fast as you can.
I have no faith that god(s) don't exist. I consider the mass of scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and the answers it has provided to be incontrovertible. Nothing in that requires faith on my part. Only reasoning. Faith is an action/concept that wholly rejects reason. It is childish in the extreme and those who depend on it for anything need to growthefuckup.
The tone of your post is what is childishly emotional and reactionary.
I can never understand how so many people who identify themselves with science seem to think that science produces incontrovertible knowledge. Science is the most rigorously skeptical approach to knowledge. Science always holds its own theories to be no better than tentative, as they are always awaiting falsification.
If your theory of a Godless universe was awaiting falsification, then you would not be so willful in asserting that it is incontrovertible, would you? Instead, you seem to have a powerful need or desire to go beyond tentative belief in the non-existence of God. You don't abandon faith in your knowledge, you want ABSOLUTE faith so that you can know INCONTROVERTIBLE truths.
Your mind is less scientific than a God-seeker.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 10:24 AM)
If your theory of a Godless universe was awaiting falsification, then you would not be so willful in asserting that it is incontrovertible, would you? Instead, you seem to have a powerful need or desire to go beyond tentative belief in the non-existence of God. You don't abandon faith in your knowledge, you want ABSOLUTE faith so that you can know INCONTROVERTIBLE truths.
You still have not grasped the ridiculousness of the god hypothesis.
The only difference between the god of Christianity and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that the Christian god was dreamed up first.
(edit)
If science ever discovers a being that could be described as a 'god,' how much would you want to bet that it's not Yahweh?
You still have not grasped the ridiculousness of the god hypothesis.
The only difference between the god of Christianity and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that the Christian god was dreamed up first.
(edit)
If science ever discovers a being that could be described as a 'god,' how much would you want to bet that it's not Yahweh?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 02:24 PM)
If your theory of a Godless universe was awaiting falsification, then you would not be so willful in asserting that it is incontrovertible, would you?
But you don't believe in God.
At best you only talk about what people mistake for God.
At worst you redefine God into something you can believe in, and then insist that that is God.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 27 2009, 10:45 PM)
Your faith in the absence of God gets tested when you find yourself in a dire situation that you feel a total lack of control over the outcome. Do you pray to God, saying you're sorry for not believing in Him and beg for mercy in your predicament OR do you say, "here's more proof that no God exists and accept whatever pain or consequences you are facing?
Neither. I do what I can do without invoking or blaming any supernatural element.
Neither. I do what I can do without invoking or blaming any supernatural element.
Well...
I usually state that I am agnostic. These are the reasons why.
I hold that it is possible that someday we will find out that there is a "God", by some definition or another. There might even be an afterlife as well... who knows what the infinities of space and time might reveal.
Note the word "possible" is not the same as "probable".
However...
1. It is impossible to ascertain at this time whether such a concept is even possible or not. It is also impossible to ascertain if such a concept is impossible.
2. Even if it's possible, no one can say which one is real and which is not. The possibility of the Christian God being real is the same as Thor, Zeus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, all Gods previously thought of and all Gods not imagined yet. It's even possible that there was a God and it died... or that there isn't one yet but one will occur in the future. Or it might be even more complicated than that.
3. It's rather premature to make a decision before all the facts are in.
Let's face it... we have barely left our planet. We can make it to our own Moon and send some probes to Mars. If you consider the ridiculous expanse of our own galaxy... and then the mind boggling hugeness of the Universe, and now scientists routinely speak of possible multiverses... we have a lot to learn.
That rather an understatement quite frankly.
Therefore... I live my life according to my own principles and I wait to see what is revealed. I don't believe in worshiping anything ... I could never really understand why any Deity is so insecure as to require worship... and I don't really worry about any Deity at this time.
If... and it's a big if... someday science ever proves God(s) simply can't exist and that we now know every possible physical law... I will simply say.. "Well, that's about it for God then".
If.. .and it's a big if... someday science or some religious guy or even God(s) him/her/itself ever proves that some God(s) exist... I will simply say.. "Well... time to sacrifice a few goats and hope that the mighty Grog or whatever isn't too mad at us".
As a personal aside, my wife is technically a pantheist... she believes that there is likely a form of Deity out there but that it's impossible for humans to understand what that is, so we give the concept names and forms that are imaginary and based on our understanding of the world. Therefore any name and any combination of attribute and personality one gives the Deity is always going to be wrong... so don't sweat the details.
That one always reminds me of the novel "Flatland" by Edwin A Abott. In it the main character, A Square, is incapable of even imagining the 3rd dimension until something actually shows it to him. Can we, even now, actually imagine what 4th or 5th physical dimension would be like?
Maybe some day.
Just some idle speculation folks... it's that kind of morning.
I usually state that I am agnostic. These are the reasons why.
I hold that it is possible that someday we will find out that there is a "God", by some definition or another. There might even be an afterlife as well... who knows what the infinities of space and time might reveal.
Note the word "possible" is not the same as "probable".
However...
1. It is impossible to ascertain at this time whether such a concept is even possible or not. It is also impossible to ascertain if such a concept is impossible.
2. Even if it's possible, no one can say which one is real and which is not. The possibility of the Christian God being real is the same as Thor, Zeus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, all Gods previously thought of and all Gods not imagined yet. It's even possible that there was a God and it died... or that there isn't one yet but one will occur in the future. Or it might be even more complicated than that.
3. It's rather premature to make a decision before all the facts are in.
Let's face it... we have barely left our planet. We can make it to our own Moon and send some probes to Mars. If you consider the ridiculous expanse of our own galaxy... and then the mind boggling hugeness of the Universe, and now scientists routinely speak of possible multiverses... we have a lot to learn.
That rather an understatement quite frankly.
Therefore... I live my life according to my own principles and I wait to see what is revealed. I don't believe in worshiping anything ... I could never really understand why any Deity is so insecure as to require worship... and I don't really worry about any Deity at this time.
If... and it's a big if... someday science ever proves God(s) simply can't exist and that we now know every possible physical law... I will simply say.. "Well, that's about it for God then".
If.. .and it's a big if... someday science or some religious guy or even God(s) him/her/itself ever proves that some God(s) exist... I will simply say.. "Well... time to sacrifice a few goats and hope that the mighty Grog or whatever isn't too mad at us".
As a personal aside, my wife is technically a pantheist... she believes that there is likely a form of Deity out there but that it's impossible for humans to understand what that is, so we give the concept names and forms that are imaginary and based on our understanding of the world. Therefore any name and any combination of attribute and personality one gives the Deity is always going to be wrong... so don't sweat the details.
That one always reminds me of the novel "Flatland" by Edwin A Abott. In it the main character, A Square, is incapable of even imagining the 3rd dimension until something actually shows it to him. Can we, even now, actually imagine what 4th or 5th physical dimension would be like?
Maybe some day.
Just some idle speculation folks... it's that kind of morning.
Here's a proposition and research question concerning atheism:
Assuming that theology is just another body of knowledge, along with other types, scientific and non-scientific, what is it that causes some individuals to resist theology more strongly than, say, astrology?
Could the force that propels this extra-strong resistance to theology be called, "God-power?" or would that be too confusing since this is the object of study itself in theology?
In literary studies, film studies, art history, etc., researchers are easily capable of studying the fictional subject matter as data, without getting powerfully caught up in whether characters depicted in art works actually exist or not. No one argues about whether Star Wars actually took place "a long time ago in a galaxy far far way." No one demands to know how long ago and which galaxy, exactly. They just study the narrative, the values portrayed, the cinematography, etc.
So my research question is why self-proclaimed atheists feel more strongly toward the narrative contents of the bible than other literary works? Do they sub-consciously maintain some level of belief in God that causes tension in their rejection of theology as a positivist account?
Assuming that theology is just another body of knowledge, along with other types, scientific and non-scientific, what is it that causes some individuals to resist theology more strongly than, say, astrology?
Could the force that propels this extra-strong resistance to theology be called, "God-power?" or would that be too confusing since this is the object of study itself in theology?
In literary studies, film studies, art history, etc., researchers are easily capable of studying the fictional subject matter as data, without getting powerfully caught up in whether characters depicted in art works actually exist or not. No one argues about whether Star Wars actually took place "a long time ago in a galaxy far far way." No one demands to know how long ago and which galaxy, exactly. They just study the narrative, the values portrayed, the cinematography, etc.
So my research question is why self-proclaimed atheists feel more strongly toward the narrative contents of the bible than other literary works? Do they sub-consciously maintain some level of belief in God that causes tension in their rejection of theology as a positivist account?
On a purely literary basis, the bible is poorly plotted, meandering, preachy, at times horrifying, humorless, pointless, self-righteous monotheistic propaganda.
How's that?
How's that?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 10:43 PM)
Here's a proposition and research question concerning atheism:
Assuming that theology is just another body of knowledge, along with other types, scientific and non-scientific, what is it that causes some individuals to resist theology more strongly than, say, astrology?
As far as I know no one has tried to ban Sunday shopping because of astrology.
And I don't think astrologers have tried to force schools to teach unscientific things in science class.
Assuming that theology is just another body of knowledge, along with other types, scientific and non-scientific, what is it that causes some individuals to resist theology more strongly than, say, astrology?
As far as I know no one has tried to ban Sunday shopping because of astrology.
And I don't think astrologers have tried to force schools to teach unscientific things in science class.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 28 2009, 10:58 PM)
On a purely literary basis, the bible is poorly plotted, meandering, preachy, at times horrifying, humorless, pointless, self-righteous monotheistic propaganda.
How's that?
An unconstructive and negative reaction that fails to yield any comprehension of why so many people like the book and want to make it the basis for their lives.
You do realize that there are people who feel this negatively about science, who will cite genocide, atomic weapons, biological engineering, chemical and biological warfare, and who knows how many other destructive technological developments as reasons why the whole scientific enterprise is a dangerous failure?
How's that?
An unconstructive and negative reaction that fails to yield any comprehension of why so many people like the book and want to make it the basis for their lives.
You do realize that there are people who feel this negatively about science, who will cite genocide, atomic weapons, biological engineering, chemical and biological warfare, and who knows how many other destructive technological developments as reasons why the whole scientific enterprise is a dangerous failure?
Astrology doesn't need to be so much resisted as ignored. Theology and its less studious adherents (theodiots?) often wield political power in its name. It is that political power which has to be resisted just to maintain scientific fields of study as free and unmolested. Both Astrology and Theology are mocked by those that don't hold to their values, but Science gets copied imprecisely by people who don't hold to Science's value of empirically tested truth, because everyone, understanding or not, gets the value of Science.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 07:16 PM)
An unconstructive and negative reaction that fails to yield any comprehension of why so many people like the book and want to make it the basis for their lives.
I've honestly read the entire thing, and it was 100% boring 100% of the way through. People like it because they think that they are reading the words of god. This works in the same way with people who listen to speeches by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. They are so excited by the personality behind the words that they don't notice that the speeches are terrible.
This is because they were failed by this country's education system.
I've honestly read the entire thing, and it was 100% boring 100% of the way through. People like it because they think that they are reading the words of god. This works in the same way with people who listen to speeches by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. They are so excited by the personality behind the words that they don't notice that the speeches are terrible.
QUOTE
You do realize that there are people who feel this negatively about science, who will cite genocide, atomic weapons, biological engineering, chemical and biological warfare, and who knows how many other destructive technological developments as reasons why the whole scientific enterprise is a dangerous failure?
This is because they were failed by this country's education system.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 11:16 PM)
An unconstructive and negative reaction that fails to yield any comprehension of why so many people like the book and want to make it the basis for their lives.
You do realize that there are people who feel this negatively about science, who will cite genocide, atomic weapons, biological engineering, chemical and biological warfare, and who knows how many other destructive technological developments as reasons why the whole scientific enterprise is a dangerous failure?
The motivation of those was not the advancement of science.
Quite the contrary the motivation of science is the opposite of all those.
And the vast majority of those that follow the book do so because their parents did and that is how they were raised.
You do realize that there are people who feel this negatively about science, who will cite genocide, atomic weapons, biological engineering, chemical and biological warfare, and who knows how many other destructive technological developments as reasons why the whole scientific enterprise is a dangerous failure?
The motivation of those was not the advancement of science.
Quite the contrary the motivation of science is the opposite of all those.
And the vast majority of those that follow the book do so because their parents did and that is how they were raised.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 28 2009, 11:41 PM)
I've honestly read the entire thing, and it was 100% boring 100% of the way through. People like it because they think that they are reading the words of god. This works in the same way with people who listen to speeches by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. They are so excited by the personality behind the words that they don't notice that the speeches are terrible.
This is because they were failed by this country's education system.
I used to think the same way, also about Bush's speeches. Since that time I've become a lot better at understanding writing at a simpler level. It is actually a fine art to take important ideas and lay them out in words that people without extensive schooling can follow. Such writing is poetry in a sense, and like poetry, many people think they get it when they probably are only getting part of it. Anyway, whenever you think something is simple and relatively meaningless, I would urge you to study it more carefully to figure out what the author's full intent was. I think you'd be surprised at what you find.
This is because they were failed by this country's education system.
I used to think the same way, also about Bush's speeches. Since that time I've become a lot better at understanding writing at a simpler level. It is actually a fine art to take important ideas and lay them out in words that people without extensive schooling can follow. Such writing is poetry in a sense, and like poetry, many people think they get it when they probably are only getting part of it. Anyway, whenever you think something is simple and relatively meaningless, I would urge you to study it more carefully to figure out what the author's full intent was. I think you'd be surprised at what you find.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 08:21 PM)
I used to think the same way, also about Bush's speeches. Since that time I've become a lot better at understanding writing at a simpler level. It is actually a fine art to take important ideas and lay them out in words that people without extensive schooling can follow. Such writing is poetry in a sense, and like poetry, many people think they get it when they probably are only getting part of it. Anyway, whenever you think something is simple and relatively meaningless, I would urge you to study it more carefully to figure out what the author's full intent was. I think you'd be surprised at what you find.
Bush? Intent? lolol!!
Have you actually seen the list of words that he made up? He's not just talking to the uneducated, he is one of them. Yale graduate my a*s.
Bush? Intent? lolol!!
Have you actually seen the list of words that he made up? He's not just talking to the uneducated, he is one of them. Yale graduate my a*s.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 12:28 AM)
Bush? Intent? lolol!!
Have you actually seen the list of words that he made up? He's not just talking to the uneducated, he is one of them. Yale graduate my a*s.
I don't think you understand the nuances of the political discourse that his language and ideas were designed to address.
In the speech launching the war on terror, he tells people not to blame Islam for the terrorists who hijack it. Then the rabid Islamophobia that takes over the media crowned him as the cause and the blame.
In the speech on stem-cell research, he tells them he'll sign any bill that doesn't destroy life to prolong it. Then there were so many people arguing that stem-cell research was not life-destroying, yet somehow they couldn't word a bill in a way that would meet his criteria.
Study the war on terror language. It totally avoids war as conflict between nations. Bush very clearly sought to combat terrorism as a decentralized global phenomenon. The Iraq war was called "operation Iraqi freedom" because they wanted to send the clear ideological message that it was not a competition to win against a nation as enemy, nor was it supposed to be occupation for economic imperialism, although every critic will tell you that oil or US imperialism was the goal.
People call me apologist for saying these things, but I'm just neutral after being against him in the beginning and witnessing everyone else who was against him turn into rabid anti-Bush nazis - by nazis I'm referring to the lockstep political opinions, by the way, nothing more. I was critical, but my open mind led me study his speeches for what they said, not what others said they said. It is/was the Bush critics who refused to break step and dissent from the opinion that he was/is an idiot and a terrible politician. It shows you what guides most people's political thought and attitudes: social pressure to fit in.
Have you actually seen the list of words that he made up? He's not just talking to the uneducated, he is one of them. Yale graduate my a*s.
I don't think you understand the nuances of the political discourse that his language and ideas were designed to address.
In the speech launching the war on terror, he tells people not to blame Islam for the terrorists who hijack it. Then the rabid Islamophobia that takes over the media crowned him as the cause and the blame.
In the speech on stem-cell research, he tells them he'll sign any bill that doesn't destroy life to prolong it. Then there were so many people arguing that stem-cell research was not life-destroying, yet somehow they couldn't word a bill in a way that would meet his criteria.
Study the war on terror language. It totally avoids war as conflict between nations. Bush very clearly sought to combat terrorism as a decentralized global phenomenon. The Iraq war was called "operation Iraqi freedom" because they wanted to send the clear ideological message that it was not a competition to win against a nation as enemy, nor was it supposed to be occupation for economic imperialism, although every critic will tell you that oil or US imperialism was the goal.
People call me apologist for saying these things, but I'm just neutral after being against him in the beginning and witnessing everyone else who was against him turn into rabid anti-Bush nazis - by nazis I'm referring to the lockstep political opinions, by the way, nothing more. I was critical, but my open mind led me study his speeches for what they said, not what others said they said. It is/was the Bush critics who refused to break step and dissent from the opinion that he was/is an idiot and a terrible politician. It shows you what guides most people's political thought and attitudes: social pressure to fit in.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 09:08 PM)
I don't think you understand the nuances of the political discourse that his language and ideas were designed to address.
LOL!
Well, we're certainly happy that he didn't blame the Jews either.
Well, we're certainly happy that he didn't blame the Jews either.
In the speech on stem-cell research, he tells them he'll sign any bill that doesn't destroy life to prolong it. Then there were so many people arguing that stem-cell research was not life-destroying, yet somehow they couldn't word a bill in a way that would meet his criteria.
That was simply a lie, or an inability to read.
You seem to forget that Saddam had zero connections to Al Qaeda (or are you a watcher of Fox News?). The evidence for war was manufactured, and Iraq was preemptively invaded (a terrifying precedent).
You seem to forget that Saddam had zero connections to Al Qaeda (or are you a watcher of Fox News?). The evidence for war was manufactured, and Iraq was preemptively invaded (a terrifying precedent).
People call me apologist for saying these things, but I'm just neutral after being against him in the beginning and witnessing everyone else who was against him turn into rabid anti-Bush nazis - by nazis I'm referring to the lockstep political opinions, by the way, nothing more. I was critical, but my open mind led me study his speeches for what they said, not what others said they said. It is/was the Bush critics who refused to break step and dissent from the opinion that he was/is an idiot and a terrible politician. It shows you what guides most people's political thought and attitudes: social pressure to fit in.
How can you read his speeches and not think "dumbass"? His policies weren't well-thought-out and he let his evangelical Christian background dictate his policy decisions. He has spent more time on vacation than any other president in history. No-one does it to "fit in." If you can't see why he's a dumbass, then you might have more in common with him than I thought.
Just curious, what are your opinions of "Sarah Palin?"
LOL!
QUOTE
In the speech launching the war on terror, he tells people not to blame Islam for the terrorists who hijack it. Then the rabid Islamophobia that takes over the media crowned him as the cause and the blame.
Well, we're certainly happy that he didn't blame the Jews either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In the speech launching the war on terror, he tells people not to blame Islam for the terrorists who hijack it. Then the rabid Islamophobia that takes over the media crowned him as the cause and the blame. |
Well, we're certainly happy that he didn't blame the Jews either.
In the speech on stem-cell research, he tells them he'll sign any bill that doesn't destroy life to prolong it. Then there were so many people arguing that stem-cell research was not life-destroying, yet somehow they couldn't word a bill in a way that would meet his criteria.
That was simply a lie, or an inability to read.
QUOTE
Study the war on terror language. It totally avoids war as conflict between nations. Bush very clearly sought to combat terrorism as a decentralized global phenomenon. The Iraq war was called "operation Iraqi freedom" because they wanted to send the clear ideological message that it was not a competition to win against a nation as enemy, nor was it supposed to be occupation for economic imperialism, although every critic will tell you that oil or US imperialism was the goal.
You seem to forget that Saddam had zero connections to Al Qaeda (or are you a watcher of Fox News?). The evidence for war was manufactured, and Iraq was preemptively invaded (a terrifying precedent).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Study the war on terror language. It totally avoids war as conflict between nations. Bush very clearly sought to combat terrorism as a decentralized global phenomenon. The Iraq war was called "operation Iraqi freedom" because they wanted to send the clear ideological message that it was not a competition to win against a nation as enemy, nor was it supposed to be occupation for economic imperialism, although every critic will tell you that oil or US imperialism was the goal. |
You seem to forget that Saddam had zero connections to Al Qaeda (or are you a watcher of Fox News?). The evidence for war was manufactured, and Iraq was preemptively invaded (a terrifying precedent).
People call me apologist for saying these things, but I'm just neutral after being against him in the beginning and witnessing everyone else who was against him turn into rabid anti-Bush nazis - by nazis I'm referring to the lockstep political opinions, by the way, nothing more. I was critical, but my open mind led me study his speeches for what they said, not what others said they said. It is/was the Bush critics who refused to break step and dissent from the opinion that he was/is an idiot and a terrible politician. It shows you what guides most people's political thought and attitudes: social pressure to fit in.
How can you read his speeches and not think "dumbass"? His policies weren't well-thought-out and he let his evangelical Christian background dictate his policy decisions. He has spent more time on vacation than any other president in history. No-one does it to "fit in." If you can't see why he's a dumbass, then you might have more in common with him than I thought.
Just curious, what are your opinions of "Sarah Palin?"
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 01:36 AM)
You seem to forget that Saddam had zero connections to Al Qaeda (or are you a watcher of Fox News?). The evidence for war was manufactured, and Iraq was preemptively invaded (a terrifying precedent).
You need to recognize that there are two enormously divergent approaches to national/state sovereignty and war in conflict.
One is that sovereignty is sacred, and territorial boundaries should be respected at practically any cost. This would be the UN perspective that Bush challenged. The other perspective is that people can and should intervene across territorial boundaries when it is rational to do so. Bush's government found it rational to do what they did in Iraq, and the goal was to liberate people from oppression. So, obviously the sovereignty people are going to claim that liberation is the prerogative of the sovereign government and that everyone not recognized by that government as having the right to liberate "its" people is an illegal invader.
The second one is this clove between people who see war as the ultimate terror to avoid. This comes with the legacy of WWII as "the war to end all wars." This political camp emphasizes the atrocities committed during wars and believes that peace comes through avoiding war. The other camp gets irritated with pacifist drama and sees military activity as relatively normal. It's the same conflict as between people who hate and fear police, and those who see them as relatively benign civil servants.
I don't really have any. I haven't paid much attention to her. She seems to represent the dedicated mother-figure and she seems to appeal to people who identify with her as more grounded than career-politician Hillary C. Sadly, I compare these two politicians on the basis of the sexist tendency to put them against each other as women, instead of as leaders. However, I believe that the presidency is ripe for a "first female president" now that a "first black president" has been elected. It's like US representative democracy is losing its minority virginity or something.
My guess is that since the democrat party got the first black slot, the first female slot will go to the republicans, and it may well be Palin.
Anyway, I don't know why I am discussing religion and politics so much on this forum. I subscribe to this forum for the science. Politics and religion are annoying to discuss because people get so emotional. I guess people get emotional about light and gravity, too, but at least it's relatively neutral topics.
You need to recognize that there are two enormously divergent approaches to national/state sovereignty and war in conflict.
One is that sovereignty is sacred, and territorial boundaries should be respected at practically any cost. This would be the UN perspective that Bush challenged. The other perspective is that people can and should intervene across territorial boundaries when it is rational to do so. Bush's government found it rational to do what they did in Iraq, and the goal was to liberate people from oppression. So, obviously the sovereignty people are going to claim that liberation is the prerogative of the sovereign government and that everyone not recognized by that government as having the right to liberate "its" people is an illegal invader.
The second one is this clove between people who see war as the ultimate terror to avoid. This comes with the legacy of WWII as "the war to end all wars." This political camp emphasizes the atrocities committed during wars and believes that peace comes through avoiding war. The other camp gets irritated with pacifist drama and sees military activity as relatively normal. It's the same conflict as between people who hate and fear police, and those who see them as relatively benign civil servants.
QUOTE
Just curious, what are your opinions of "Sarah Palin?"
I don't really have any. I haven't paid much attention to her. She seems to represent the dedicated mother-figure and she seems to appeal to people who identify with her as more grounded than career-politician Hillary C. Sadly, I compare these two politicians on the basis of the sexist tendency to put them against each other as women, instead of as leaders. However, I believe that the presidency is ripe for a "first female president" now that a "first black president" has been elected. It's like US representative democracy is losing its minority virginity or something.
My guess is that since the democrat party got the first black slot, the first female slot will go to the republicans, and it may well be Palin.
Anyway, I don't know why I am discussing religion and politics so much on this forum. I subscribe to this forum for the science. Politics and religion are annoying to discuss because people get so emotional. I guess people get emotional about light and gravity, too, but at least it's relatively neutral topics.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 11:01 PM)
Bush's government found it rational to do what they did in Iraq, and the goal was to liberate people from oppression. So, obviously the sovereignty people are going to claim that liberation is the prerogative of the sovereign government and that everyone not recognized by that government as having the right to liberate "its" people is an illegal invader.
That's the post-invasion excuse. Right up until a week before the invasion, the reason was WMD's, for which the evidence was falsified and exaggerated.
murder is relatively normal, should that be legal?
murder is relatively normal, should that be legal?
My guess is that since the democrat party got the first black slot, the first female slot will go to the republicans, and it may well be Palin.
And this is why Americans terrify me. If people are willing to elect an ignorant tyrant because of her gender, what hope do we have? Have you heard nothing about the dozens of corruption charges against her? She resigned as Governor of Alaska over it.
This is not apparent. You would rather discuss fiction than science.
I hope this thread gets so massive that it collapses into a black hole and only other threads about science continue to be visible. Still, I continue to discuss - a slave to relevance I am.
That's the post-invasion excuse. Right up until a week before the invasion, the reason was WMD's, for which the evidence was falsified and exaggerated.
QUOTE
The other camp gets irritated with pacifist drama and sees military activity as relatively normal.
murder is relatively normal, should that be legal?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The other camp gets irritated with pacifist drama and sees military activity as relatively normal. |
murder is relatively normal, should that be legal?
My guess is that since the democrat party got the first black slot, the first female slot will go to the republicans, and it may well be Palin.
And this is why Americans terrify me. If people are willing to elect an ignorant tyrant because of her gender, what hope do we have? Have you heard nothing about the dozens of corruption charges against her? She resigned as Governor of Alaska over it.
QUOTE
Anyway, I don't know why I am discussing religion and politics so much on this forum. I subscribe to this forum for the science.
This is not apparent. You would rather discuss fiction than science.
I hope this thread gets so massive that it collapses into a black hole and only other threads about science continue to be visible. Still, I continue to discuss - a slave to relevance I am.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 03:11 AM)
That's the post-invasion excuse. Right up until a week before the invasion, the reason was WMD's, for which the evidence was falsified and exaggerated.
A trojan horse maybe? Or did they have good reason to believe the technology was there since they gave it to them themselves during the Iran-Iraq wars? Both arguments are defensible.
Of course not. But this is a war-as-atrocities argument. Some people would say that there's no reason anybody has to get killed when the police enter your house. The same could be said about invasion and occupation, which themselves are pretty escalationist terms, don't you think?
Of course not. But this is a war-as-atrocities argument. Some people would say that there's no reason anybody has to get killed when the police enter your house. The same could be said about invasion and occupation, which themselves are pretty escalationist terms, don't you think?
And this is why Americans terrify me. If people are willing to elect an ignorant tyrant because of her gender, what hope do we have? Have you heard nothing about the dozens of corruption charges against her? She resigned as Governor of Alaska over it.
The people who terrify me are the ones who can watch and read the news and think that they have a direct view of reality. You're watching a discourse. It is media designed to intrigue, entertain, and stimulate all your emotions and thoughts. The media says more about the viewer than it does about the subject matter.
You enjoy witty insults more than discussing science. You probably enjoy discussing science, but only with people you qualify as worthwhile discussants. You probably pay attention to my posts because they contain interesting thinking, but you don't get anything out of them because your mind stays closed until you allow it to be challenged by someone you deem relevant enough.
A trojan horse maybe? Or did they have good reason to believe the technology was there since they gave it to them themselves during the Iran-Iraq wars? Both arguments are defensible.
QUOTE
murder is relatively normal, should that be legal?
Of course not. But this is a war-as-atrocities argument. Some people would say that there's no reason anybody has to get killed when the police enter your house. The same could be said about invasion and occupation, which themselves are pretty escalationist terms, don't you think?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| murder is relatively normal, should that be legal? |
Of course not. But this is a war-as-atrocities argument. Some people would say that there's no reason anybody has to get killed when the police enter your house. The same could be said about invasion and occupation, which themselves are pretty escalationist terms, don't you think?
And this is why Americans terrify me. If people are willing to elect an ignorant tyrant because of her gender, what hope do we have? Have you heard nothing about the dozens of corruption charges against her? She resigned as Governor of Alaska over it.
The people who terrify me are the ones who can watch and read the news and think that they have a direct view of reality. You're watching a discourse. It is media designed to intrigue, entertain, and stimulate all your emotions and thoughts. The media says more about the viewer than it does about the subject matter.
QUOTE
This is not apparent. You would rather discuss fiction than science.
You enjoy witty insults more than discussing science. You probably enjoy discussing science, but only with people you qualify as worthwhile discussants. You probably pay attention to my posts because they contain interesting thinking, but you don't get anything out of them because your mind stays closed until you allow it to be challenged by someone you deem relevant enough.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 28 2009, 11:24 PM)
A trojan horse maybe? Or did they have good reason to believe the technology was there since they gave it to them themselves during the Iran-Iraq wars? Both arguments are defensible.
The claim was that Saddam was actively pursuing the creation of WMD's. The older weapons had been all but destroyed after Desert Storm and Desert Fox. Bush's real motivations for invading Iraq over any other oppressed country (Sudan?) may never be known.
If police enter your house with deadly force, they should have a reason. That said, they should know better than to shoot the children. When you invade a country, civilian casualties are a given. Civilians have no responsibility for the actions of a despotic regime. Blowing them up is indefensible.
If police enter your house with deadly force, they should have a reason. That said, they should know better than to shoot the children. When you invade a country, civilian casualties are a given. Civilians have no responsibility for the actions of a despotic regime. Blowing them up is indefensible.
The people who terrify me are the ones who can watch and read the news and think that they have a direct view of reality.
I don't watch the news. I have over a dozen sources online, all of which are more interested in journalistic integrity than raw profits. Besides, Sarah Palin speaks for herself, or rather, attempts to. Her speeches are buzzword soup. No content, just references to American ideals and how she likes them.
I realize that you're learning, albeit slowly, but many of the things you say are products of your own lack of knowledge in a particular area. You continue to assert that light requires a medium, even though it is evident that you have never studied EM theory. I truly hope that you will at some point learn to differentiate between science fact and science fiction.
(note: 4Dguy is a known peddler of nonsense and a retired pharmacist[??], while AlphaNumeric and rpenner are actually scientists)
The claim was that Saddam was actively pursuing the creation of WMD's. The older weapons had been all but destroyed after Desert Storm and Desert Fox. Bush's real motivations for invading Iraq over any other oppressed country (Sudan?) may never be known.
QUOTE
Of course not. But this is a war-as-atrocities argument. Some people would say that there's no reason anybody has to get killed when the police enter your house. The same could be said about invasion and occupation, which themselves are pretty escalationist terms, don't you think?
If police enter your house with deadly force, they should have a reason. That said, they should know better than to shoot the children. When you invade a country, civilian casualties are a given. Civilians have no responsibility for the actions of a despotic regime. Blowing them up is indefensible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course not. But this is a war-as-atrocities argument. Some people would say that there's no reason anybody has to get killed when the police enter your house. The same could be said about invasion and occupation, which themselves are pretty escalationist terms, don't you think? |
If police enter your house with deadly force, they should have a reason. That said, they should know better than to shoot the children. When you invade a country, civilian casualties are a given. Civilians have no responsibility for the actions of a despotic regime. Blowing them up is indefensible.
The people who terrify me are the ones who can watch and read the news and think that they have a direct view of reality.
I don't watch the news. I have over a dozen sources online, all of which are more interested in journalistic integrity than raw profits. Besides, Sarah Palin speaks for herself, or rather, attempts to. Her speeches are buzzword soup. No content, just references to American ideals and how she likes them.
QUOTE
You enjoy witty insults more than discussing science. You probably enjoy discussing science, but only with people you qualify as worthwhile discussants. You probably pay attention to my posts because they contain interesting thinking, but you don't get anything out of them because your mind stays closed until you allow it to be challenged by someone you deem relevant enough.
I realize that you're learning, albeit slowly, but many of the things you say are products of your own lack of knowledge in a particular area. You continue to assert that light requires a medium, even though it is evident that you have never studied EM theory. I truly hope that you will at some point learn to differentiate between science fact and science fiction.
(note: 4Dguy is a known peddler of nonsense and a retired pharmacist[??], while AlphaNumeric and rpenner are actually scientists)
I hardly do any science nowadays. I have proposed and validated a few phenomenological models in the last 10 years, but mostly I do odd engineering jobs. Today I'm doing archeology of a computer system which could have been better documented by the people whose jobs were not as secure as they thought so that the system can be successfully reproduced. And if I use methods adopted from reproducing phylogenetic trees, that just goes to my depth.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 04:08 AM)
The claim was that Saddam was actively pursuing the creation of WMD's. The older weapons had been all but destroyed after Desert Storm and Desert Fox. Bush's real motivations for invading Iraq over any other oppressed country (Sudan?) may never be known.
By "trojan horse" I meant that it might have been that Bush (consultants) may have decided that some reason was needed to get popular approval for moving troops to that region. An ideological propaganda campaign has been fought using the Vietnam conflict to deter popular approval of "foreign entanglements." In other words, like WWII, Vietnam has been used as a propaganda tool to avert war through fear of the atrocities. If Bush (consultants) viewed Iraq as the next Vietnam in terms of war-aversion propaganda, it could have been there strategy to pursue it as a conflict region with the counter-propaganda strategy of averting fearful war-propaganda. This would resonate with the overall project of the war on terror, since terror spread through war-propaganda is one form of terror.
WMD is just the general propaganda tactic used to avert war since their initial development during the WWII period. There's actually a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, I believe, who made a pretty interesting speech about the future of global politics after the unveiling of atomic weaponry. I can't think of his name now. Maybe someone on this forum knows it.
Violence against anyone is never ethical when it is not done as a direct resistance to violence. The problem arises when there are individuals with ideological motivations to commit violence in resistance to indirect, potential violence. For example, if soldiers enter your neighborhood and you think that there is a potential that they will harm you, that is not legitimate reason to commit violence against them. Is "invasion" a grounds for attack? From the perspective of direct violence only to stop direct violence, I don't think it is. There was a massive bombing campaign at the beginning of that war, but I can't remember what reason was given. It may be that there are military strategists that simply refuse to send soldiers on the ground without first demonstrating enormous air-strike capabilities, as a disincentive to engage in guerilla tactics against the soldiers. I'm not a military strategist, so this is just me speculating.
If civilians have no responsibility for a despotic regime, why should soldiers?
Violence against anyone is never ethical when it is not done as a direct resistance to violence. The problem arises when there are individuals with ideological motivations to commit violence in resistance to indirect, potential violence. For example, if soldiers enter your neighborhood and you think that there is a potential that they will harm you, that is not legitimate reason to commit violence against them. Is "invasion" a grounds for attack? From the perspective of direct violence only to stop direct violence, I don't think it is. There was a massive bombing campaign at the beginning of that war, but I can't remember what reason was given. It may be that there are military strategists that simply refuse to send soldiers on the ground without first demonstrating enormous air-strike capabilities, as a disincentive to engage in guerilla tactics against the soldiers. I'm not a military strategist, so this is just me speculating.
If civilians have no responsibility for a despotic regime, why should soldiers?
I don't watch the news. I have over a dozen sources online, all of which are more interested in journalistic integrity than raw profits. Besides, Sarah Palin speaks for herself, or rather, attempts to. Her speeches are buzzword soup. No content, just references to American ideals and how she likes them.
Try studying the way she talks about such ideal and contextualizes them. How does she re-present them in a newish way to give them new life. Of course politics is always about rehashing old ideas. There hasn't been any radically new ideas in politics for centuries. The question is how do they keep freshening it up to keep people engaged.
Your implication is that learning always takes place as reception of existing knowledge. I'm learning through developing my own conceptual understanding of physical properties. This doesn't require rejecting or accepting existing knowledge. It just approaches it as a resource instead of as the basis for learning. It's like the way you use a dictionary as compared to a language textbook. You want me to study the textbook, I want to read and talk and keep the dictionary around for reference. It's a difference of taste.
Your implication is that learning always takes place as reception of existing knowledge. I'm learning through developing my own conceptual understanding of physical properties. This doesn't require rejecting or accepting existing knowledge. It just approaches it as a resource instead of as the basis for learning. It's like the way you use a dictionary as compared to a language textbook. You want me to study the textbook, I want to read and talk and keep the dictionary around for reference. It's a difference of taste.
(note: 4Dguy is a known peddler of nonsense and a retired pharmacist[??], while AlphaNumeric and rpenner are actually scientists)
I can tell who is institutionally embedded from the way they write. I like 4Dguy because he tries to explore ideas through examples, the same as I do. It may not always lead to the correct answer, but it develops my intuitive ability to contextualize concepts. I like everyone's posts here when they contain enlightening information or constructive argumentation. There are many smart and creative people who post on this forum, regardless of institutional status, which makes it interesting to communicate.
The posts I like less, besides the really mean ones and the ads, are the ones where I have the feeling like the posters do not even think about physical mechanics. Instead they just seem to take interesting-sounding concepts and aestheticize them. I try to follow their logic and consider the mechanical implications and it comes out like nonsense, but I feel hesitant to judge because I might not be understanding right, or these people might have some form of insight that I lack. But still, the idea that they are just posting BS and don't care about what they're thinking about irritates me.
Did I just read this right?
By "trojan horse" I meant that it might have been that Bush (consultants) may have decided that some reason was needed to get popular approval for moving troops to that region. An ideological propaganda campaign has been fought using the Vietnam conflict to deter popular approval of "foreign entanglements." In other words, like WWII, Vietnam has been used as a propaganda tool to avert war through fear of the atrocities. If Bush (consultants) viewed Iraq as the next Vietnam in terms of war-aversion propaganda, it could have been there strategy to pursue it as a conflict region with the counter-propaganda strategy of averting fearful war-propaganda. This would resonate with the overall project of the war on terror, since terror spread through war-propaganda is one form of terror.
WMD is just the general propaganda tactic used to avert war since their initial development during the WWII period. There's actually a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, I believe, who made a pretty interesting speech about the future of global politics after the unveiling of atomic weaponry. I can't think of his name now. Maybe someone on this forum knows it.
QUOTE
If police enter your house with deadly force, they should have a reason. That said, they should know better than to shoot the children. When you invade a country, civilian casualties are a given. Civilians have no responsibility for the actions of a despotic regime. Blowing them up is indefensible.
Violence against anyone is never ethical when it is not done as a direct resistance to violence. The problem arises when there are individuals with ideological motivations to commit violence in resistance to indirect, potential violence. For example, if soldiers enter your neighborhood and you think that there is a potential that they will harm you, that is not legitimate reason to commit violence against them. Is "invasion" a grounds for attack? From the perspective of direct violence only to stop direct violence, I don't think it is. There was a massive bombing campaign at the beginning of that war, but I can't remember what reason was given. It may be that there are military strategists that simply refuse to send soldiers on the ground without first demonstrating enormous air-strike capabilities, as a disincentive to engage in guerilla tactics against the soldiers. I'm not a military strategist, so this is just me speculating.
If civilians have no responsibility for a despotic regime, why should soldiers?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If police enter your house with deadly force, they should have a reason. That said, they should know better than to shoot the children. When you invade a country, civilian casualties are a given. Civilians have no responsibility for the actions of a despotic regime. Blowing them up is indefensible. |
Violence against anyone is never ethical when it is not done as a direct resistance to violence. The problem arises when there are individuals with ideological motivations to commit violence in resistance to indirect, potential violence. For example, if soldiers enter your neighborhood and you think that there is a potential that they will harm you, that is not legitimate reason to commit violence against them. Is "invasion" a grounds for attack? From the perspective of direct violence only to stop direct violence, I don't think it is. There was a massive bombing campaign at the beginning of that war, but I can't remember what reason was given. It may be that there are military strategists that simply refuse to send soldiers on the ground without first demonstrating enormous air-strike capabilities, as a disincentive to engage in guerilla tactics against the soldiers. I'm not a military strategist, so this is just me speculating.
If civilians have no responsibility for a despotic regime, why should soldiers?
I don't watch the news. I have over a dozen sources online, all of which are more interested in journalistic integrity than raw profits. Besides, Sarah Palin speaks for herself, or rather, attempts to. Her speeches are buzzword soup. No content, just references to American ideals and how she likes them.
Try studying the way she talks about such ideal and contextualizes them. How does she re-present them in a newish way to give them new life. Of course politics is always about rehashing old ideas. There hasn't been any radically new ideas in politics for centuries. The question is how do they keep freshening it up to keep people engaged.
QUOTE
I realize that you're learning, albeit slowly, but many of the things you say are products of your own lack of knowledge in a particular area. You continue to assert that light requires a medium, even though it is evident that you have never studied EM theory. I truly hope that you will at some point learn to differentiate between science fact and science fiction.
Your implication is that learning always takes place as reception of existing knowledge. I'm learning through developing my own conceptual understanding of physical properties. This doesn't require rejecting or accepting existing knowledge. It just approaches it as a resource instead of as the basis for learning. It's like the way you use a dictionary as compared to a language textbook. You want me to study the textbook, I want to read and talk and keep the dictionary around for reference. It's a difference of taste.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I realize that you're learning, albeit slowly, but many of the things you say are products of your own lack of knowledge in a particular area. You continue to assert that light requires a medium, even though it is evident that you have never studied EM theory. I truly hope that you will at some point learn to differentiate between science fact and science fiction. |
Your implication is that learning always takes place as reception of existing knowledge. I'm learning through developing my own conceptual understanding of physical properties. This doesn't require rejecting or accepting existing knowledge. It just approaches it as a resource instead of as the basis for learning. It's like the way you use a dictionary as compared to a language textbook. You want me to study the textbook, I want to read and talk and keep the dictionary around for reference. It's a difference of taste.
(note: 4Dguy is a known peddler of nonsense and a retired pharmacist[??], while AlphaNumeric and rpenner are actually scientists)
I can tell who is institutionally embedded from the way they write. I like 4Dguy because he tries to explore ideas through examples, the same as I do. It may not always lead to the correct answer, but it develops my intuitive ability to contextualize concepts. I like everyone's posts here when they contain enlightening information or constructive argumentation. There are many smart and creative people who post on this forum, regardless of institutional status, which makes it interesting to communicate.
The posts I like less, besides the really mean ones and the ads, are the ones where I have the feeling like the posters do not even think about physical mechanics. Instead they just seem to take interesting-sounding concepts and aestheticize them. I try to follow their logic and consider the mechanical implications and it comes out like nonsense, but I feel hesitant to judge because I might not be understanding right, or these people might have some form of insight that I lack. But still, the idea that they are just posting BS and don't care about what they're thinking about irritates me.
QUOTE
For example, if soldiers enter your neighborhood and you think that there is a potential that they will harm you, that is not legitimate reason to commit violence against them. Is "invasion" a grounds for attack? From the perspective of direct violence only to stop direct violence, I don't think it is.
Did I just read this right?
It is interesting how history can be rewritten even a few years later.
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq. That first Gulf war never ended. In an effort to end the war a requirement was placed on Iraq, by the UN, to dispose of all WMD’s. The UN inspectors tried to find and dispose of those WMD’s. Because of non-cooperation of Iraq, the UN inspectors reported that they could not do their task.
The UN passed more resolutions that would allow actions against Iraq if they did not cooperate. At that point the inspectors went back into Iraq and were even unable to find the stockpiles of weapons they had verified the first time they were there. Iraq also refused to disclose the disposition of the WMD’s that the inspectors had verified existed the first time they were there.
The US went back to the UN to call for action against Iraq and it became clear that the UN as a body was not going to act. The US and other countries, using the legal right of any member of the UN to enforce the resolutions of the UN, acted.
This is the basis of the action in Iraq. All other inputs of intelligence was only in support of the already know missing stockpiles of WMD’s. Even without any other input, the action by the US and others was necessary.
The only reason for our involvement in the Middle East is to prevent Dark Age societies with disregard of human life from obtaining nuclear weapons.
From a military point of view, Iraq is the High Ground.
It is now sad to see our efforts and the loss of life we have had go to waste under Obama. Under Obama Iran will get nukes and the result will be a major nuclear exchange in the Middle East. I can see nothing that will change this end result at this point.
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq. That first Gulf war never ended. In an effort to end the war a requirement was placed on Iraq, by the UN, to dispose of all WMD’s. The UN inspectors tried to find and dispose of those WMD’s. Because of non-cooperation of Iraq, the UN inspectors reported that they could not do their task.
The UN passed more resolutions that would allow actions against Iraq if they did not cooperate. At that point the inspectors went back into Iraq and were even unable to find the stockpiles of weapons they had verified the first time they were there. Iraq also refused to disclose the disposition of the WMD’s that the inspectors had verified existed the first time they were there.
The US went back to the UN to call for action against Iraq and it became clear that the UN as a body was not going to act. The US and other countries, using the legal right of any member of the UN to enforce the resolutions of the UN, acted.
This is the basis of the action in Iraq. All other inputs of intelligence was only in support of the already know missing stockpiles of WMD’s. Even without any other input, the action by the US and others was necessary.
The only reason for our involvement in the Middle East is to prevent Dark Age societies with disregard of human life from obtaining nuclear weapons.
From a military point of view, Iraq is the High Ground.
It is now sad to see our efforts and the loss of life we have had go to waste under Obama. Under Obama Iran will get nukes and the result will be a major nuclear exchange in the Middle East. I can see nothing that will change this end result at this point.
QUOTE (tlocity+Oct 1 2009, 07:55 AM)
It is interesting how history can be rewritten even a few years later.
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq. That first Gulf war never ended. In an effort to end the war a requirement was placed on Iraq, by the UN, to dispose of all WMD’s. The UN inspectors tried to find and dispose of those WMD’s. Because of non-cooperation of Iraq, the UN inspectors reported that they could not do their task.
The UN passed more resolutions that would allow actions against Iraq if they did not cooperate. At that point the inspectors went back into Iraq and were even unable to find the stockpiles of weapons they had verified the first time they were there. Iraq also refused to disclose the disposition of the WMD’s that the inspectors had verified existed the first time they were there.
The US went back to the UN to call for action against Iraq and it became clear that the UN as a body was not going to act. The US and other countries, using the legal right of any member of the UN to enforce the resolutions of the UN, acted.
This is the basis of the action in Iraq. All other inputs of intelligence was only in support of the already know missing stockpiles of WMD’s. Even without any other input, the action by the US and others was necessary.
The only reason for our involvement in the Middle East is to prevent Dark Age societies with disregard of human life from obtaining nuclear weapons.
From a military point of view, Iraq is the High Ground.
It is now sad to see our efforts and the loss of life we have had go to waste under Obama. Under Obama Iran will get nukes and the result will be a major nuclear exchange in the Middle East. I can see nothing that will change this end result at this point.
ee
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq. That first Gulf war never ended. In an effort to end the war a requirement was placed on Iraq, by the UN, to dispose of all WMD’s. The UN inspectors tried to find and dispose of those WMD’s. Because of non-cooperation of Iraq, the UN inspectors reported that they could not do their task.
The UN passed more resolutions that would allow actions against Iraq if they did not cooperate. At that point the inspectors went back into Iraq and were even unable to find the stockpiles of weapons they had verified the first time they were there. Iraq also refused to disclose the disposition of the WMD’s that the inspectors had verified existed the first time they were there.
The US went back to the UN to call for action against Iraq and it became clear that the UN as a body was not going to act. The US and other countries, using the legal right of any member of the UN to enforce the resolutions of the UN, acted.
This is the basis of the action in Iraq. All other inputs of intelligence was only in support of the already know missing stockpiles of WMD’s. Even without any other input, the action by the US and others was necessary.
The only reason for our involvement in the Middle East is to prevent Dark Age societies with disregard of human life from obtaining nuclear weapons.
From a military point of view, Iraq is the High Ground.
It is now sad to see our efforts and the loss of life we have had go to waste under Obama. Under Obama Iran will get nukes and the result will be a major nuclear exchange in the Middle East. I can see nothing that will change this end result at this point.
ee
QUOTE (tlocity+Oct 1 2009, 01:25 PM)
It is interesting how history can be rewritten even a few years later.
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq.
It is interesting isn't it?.
Maybe we should start from the beginning and ask 'Who created Saddam Hussein?'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussei...tates_relations
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq.
It is interesting isn't it?.
Maybe we should start from the beginning and ask 'Who created Saddam Hussein?'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussei...tates_relations
QUOTE (wiki+)
In 1980, Iraq started the war with a blitzkrieg attack. The tide had turned by 1982 in favor of much larger Iran, and the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might lose. Reagan chose Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[2]
After the visit, the Reagan administration offered Hussein financial credits that eventually made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. The CIA and DIA relation with Hussein intensified. The CIA regularly sent a team to Hussein to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft, Iraq used this information to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons.[1][2]
Under President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. doubled its financial credits for Iraq. Dick_ Cheney, who was secretary of defense and a statutory member of the National Security Council that reviewed Iraq policy, supported the administration's appeasement policy.[
After the visit, the Reagan administration offered Hussein financial credits that eventually made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. The CIA and DIA relation with Hussein intensified. The CIA regularly sent a team to Hussein to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft, Iraq used this information to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons.[1][2]
Under President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. doubled its financial credits for Iraq. Dick_ Cheney, who was secretary of defense and a statutory member of the National Security Council that reviewed Iraq policy, supported the administration's appeasement policy.[
QUOTE (tlocity+Oct 1 2009, 07:55 AM)
It is interesting how history can be rewritten even a few years later.
Or in your case, how it can be continuously misrepresented.
QUOTE (tlocity+)
The war with Iraq started over an invasion by Iraq. That first Gulf war never ended. In an effort to end the war a requirement was placed on Iraq, by the UN, to dispose of all WMD’s. The UN inspectors tried to find and dispose of those WMD’s. Because of non-cooperation of Iraq, the UN inspectors reported that they could not do their task.
The first Gulf War started because Iraq was allowed to invade Kuwait. Iraqi forces masssed on the border of Kuwait in plain sight of western intelligence agencies, and proceeded to invade Kuwait without so much as a warning shot to check their progress.
As to your version of the end of the war, Bush 41 had a different take on the issue:
Although the Iraqis had not been fully cooperative, weapons inspectors believed that 90-95% of WMD had been destroyed by 1998. In 2003 prior to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors believed that questions regarding compliance could be settled in a mater of a few months. Unfortunately Bush 43 didn't have the brains or patience to allow the inspectors to complete their task.
Although the Iraqis had not been fully cooperative, weapons inspectors believed that 90-95% of WMD had been destroyed by 1998. In 2003 prior to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors believed that questions regarding compliance could be settled in a mater of a few months. Unfortunately Bush 43 didn't have the brains or patience to allow the inspectors to complete their task.
This is the basis of the action in Iraq. All other inputs of intelligence was only in support of the already know missing stockpiles of WMD’s. Even without any other input, the action by the US and others was necessary.
As to your version of the end of the war, Bush 41 had a different take on the issue:
QUOTE
From the moment Operation Desert Storm commenced on January 16th until the time the guns fell silent at midnight 1 week ago, this nation has watched its sons and daughters with pride, watched over them with prayer. As Commander in Chief, I can report to you our armed forces fought with honor and valor. And as President, I can report to the Nation aggression is defeated. The war is over.
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3430
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3430
Although the Iraqis had not been fully cooperative, weapons inspectors believed that 90-95% of WMD had been destroyed by 1998. In 2003 prior to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors believed that questions regarding compliance could be settled in a mater of a few months. Unfortunately Bush 43 didn't have the brains or patience to allow the inspectors to complete their task.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| From the moment Operation Desert Storm commenced on January 16th until the time the guns fell silent at midnight 1 week ago, this nation has watched its sons and daughters with pride, watched over them with prayer. As Commander in Chief, I can report to you our armed forces fought with honor and valor. And as President, I can report to the Nation aggression is defeated. The war is over. http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3430 |
Although the Iraqis had not been fully cooperative, weapons inspectors believed that 90-95% of WMD had been destroyed by 1998. In 2003 prior to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors believed that questions regarding compliance could be settled in a mater of a few months. Unfortunately Bush 43 didn't have the brains or patience to allow the inspectors to complete their task.
This is the basis of the action in Iraq. All other inputs of intelligence was only in support of the already know missing stockpiles of WMD’s. Even without any other input, the action by the US and others was necessary.
Known stockpiles? This is what David Kay, the head of the Iraq Survey group had to say in 2004:
It is now sad to see our efforts and the loss of life we have had go to waste under Obama. Under Obama Iran will get nukes and the result will be a major nuclear exchange in the Middle East. I can see nothing that will change this end result at this point.
"Hardly"
QUOTE
I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kay |
It is now sad to see our efforts and the loss of life we have had go to waste under Obama. Under Obama Iran will get nukes and the result will be a major nuclear exchange in the Middle East. I can see nothing that will change this end result at this point.
How does a nuclear armed Iran equal a nuclear exchange in the Middle East? For all the Iranian rhetoric about wanting Israel to go away, how would it be in their own self interest to make it happen with a nuclear attack? Iran, like the other nuclear powers before them, will likely realize that the consequences of nuclear aggression far outweigh the benefits of there intended use.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 1 2009, 11:47 PM)
How does a nuclear armed Iran equal a nuclear exchange in the Middle East?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 2 2009, 01:27 AM)
Are you serious?
Unless you think that the leadership of Iran is made up of chimpanzees with no instinct for self preservation, why would you assume that they would be anymore likely to aggressively use nuclear weapons than the existing nuclear powers?
Unless you think that the leadership of Iran is made up of chimpanzees with no instinct for self preservation, why would you assume that they would be anymore likely to aggressively use nuclear weapons than the existing nuclear powers?
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 2 2009, 02:04 AM)
Unless you think that the leadership of Iran is made up of chimpanzees...
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 2 2009, 02:04 AM)
Unless you think that the leadership of Iran is made up of chimpanzees with no instinct for self preservation, why would you assume that they would be anymore likely to aggressively use nuclear weapons than the existing nuclear powers?
This is a good argument to the extent that you can assume that there is sufficient identification with, and will to protect, the citizens represented by the government associated with the region where they live. In the case of satellite governments, or governments where decision-making power is the result of interests or delegation of people not residing in the region of potential retaliatory annihilation, this argument would be invalidated.
In other words, the ideal strategy for launching a nuclear attack against anyone anywhere on Earth would be to do it from a launch site other that the one where you live. That way, retaliation annihilates the people you set up to get the blame, in this case the people living in the region called, Iran. This, of course, assumes that the power doing the retaliating believes that the people living in a given region are responsible for the actions of their (military) commanders, or more specifically, whatever individual(s) control the deployment of nuclear weapons, or any other weapons for that matter.
This reminds me of the movie, The Hunt for Red October, where the Captain of an ICBM submarine hijacks the vessel to escape to N. America. Those submarines can surface anywhere and launch an attack against anywhere else, and re-submerge before anyone could see what kind of submarine it came out of. In fact, I think they can even launch from under water.
I think they also came out with an ideology during the cold-war that if anyone would launch a nuclear attack from anywhere, there were so many weapons that everywhere would get bombarded with nuclear attacks. This supposedly prevented anyone from getting the idea that they could attack anyone else without initiating total annihilation of everyone, including themselves, which supposedly would prevent anyone from trying.
This is a good argument to the extent that you can assume that there is sufficient identification with, and will to protect, the citizens represented by the government associated with the region where they live. In the case of satellite governments, or governments where decision-making power is the result of interests or delegation of people not residing in the region of potential retaliatory annihilation, this argument would be invalidated.
In other words, the ideal strategy for launching a nuclear attack against anyone anywhere on Earth would be to do it from a launch site other that the one where you live. That way, retaliation annihilates the people you set up to get the blame, in this case the people living in the region called, Iran. This, of course, assumes that the power doing the retaliating believes that the people living in a given region are responsible for the actions of their (military) commanders, or more specifically, whatever individual(s) control the deployment of nuclear weapons, or any other weapons for that matter.
This reminds me of the movie, The Hunt for Red October, where the Captain of an ICBM submarine hijacks the vessel to escape to N. America. Those submarines can surface anywhere and launch an attack against anywhere else, and re-submerge before anyone could see what kind of submarine it came out of. In fact, I think they can even launch from under water.
I think they also came out with an ideology during the cold-war that if anyone would launch a nuclear attack from anywhere, there were so many weapons that everywhere would get bombarded with nuclear attacks. This supposedly prevented anyone from getting the idea that they could attack anyone else without initiating total annihilation of everyone, including themselves, which supposedly would prevent anyone from trying.
QUOTE
Derek1148, Oct 2 2009, 02:20 AM
Ahmadinejad in his denial, is just trying to emulate his American counterparts, it's a case of monkey see, monkey do.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1220619/wmd_..._ultimate_clip/
If homosexual repression is a qualification for membership in The Nuclear Weapons Club for Men, then Iran should be encouraged to join. Eight of the ten present and former nuclear powers considered homosexuality to be a criminal offense at the time they acquired their nuclear capability. Using this standard, France and Israel should be stripped of their nuclear arsenals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_b...ry_or_territory
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Derek1148, Oct 2 2009, 02:20 AM Unless you think that the leadership of Iran is made up of chimpanzees... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI |
Ahmadinejad in his denial, is just trying to emulate his American counterparts, it's a case of monkey see, monkey do.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1220619/wmd_..._ultimate_clip/
If homosexual repression is a qualification for membership in The Nuclear Weapons Club for Men, then Iran should be encouraged to join. Eight of the ten present and former nuclear powers considered homosexuality to be a criminal offense at the time they acquired their nuclear capability. Using this standard, France and Israel should be stripped of their nuclear arsenals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_b...ry_or_territory
It's not so much the repression that should be of concern, it's the insanity.
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 2 2009, 10:01 AM)
Using this standard, France and Israel should be stripped of their nuclear arsenals.
But what if they saw each other "stripped" and discovered homosexual attraction for each other? They would end up "strapping" their missiles back on pretty quickly then wouldn't they?
note: I apologize for this crude attempt at humor. It was a petty response to a superficially spurious association between sexuality and nuclear capabilities, which actually may turn out to be causal in some Freudian political economic logic.
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy. And again for having no sense of humor. General failure of model of mind and model of universe.]
But what if they saw each other "stripped" and discovered homosexual attraction for each other? They would end up "strapping" their missiles back on pretty quickly then wouldn't they?
note: I apologize for this crude attempt at humor. It was a petty response to a superficially spurious association between sexuality and nuclear capabilities, which actually may turn out to be causal in some Freudian political economic logic.
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy. And again for having no sense of humor. General failure of model of mind and model of universe.]
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 2 2009, 09:46 PM)
But what if they saw each other "stripped" and discovered homosexual attraction for each other? They would end up "strapping" their missiles back on pretty quickly then wouldn't they?
note: I apologize for this crude attempt at humor. It was a petty response to a superficially spurious association between sexuality and nuclear capabilities, which actually may turn out to be causal in some Freudian political economic logic.
I laughed.
Have you seen Dr. Strangelove (or how I leaned to love the bomb)?
The penultimate scene is Slim Pickens with the missile between his legs.
The missile as a phallus symbol is obvious.
note: I apologize for this crude attempt at humor. It was a petty response to a superficially spurious association between sexuality and nuclear capabilities, which actually may turn out to be causal in some Freudian political economic logic.
I laughed.
Have you seen Dr. Strangelove (or how I leaned to love the bomb)?
The penultimate scene is Slim Pickens with the missile between his legs.
The missile as a phallus symbol is obvious.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 2 2009, 10:19 PM)
I laughed.
Have you seen Dr. Strangelove (or how I leaned to love the bomb)?
The penultimate scene is Slim Pickens with the missile between his legs.
The missile as a phallus symbol is obvious.
We must be careful with how far we go with this phallic humor. I believe it could be grounds for getting castrated, uh I meant "banned."
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy. Also, for having no sense of humor.]
Have you seen Dr. Strangelove (or how I leaned to love the bomb)?
The penultimate scene is Slim Pickens with the missile between his legs.
The missile as a phallus symbol is obvious.
We must be careful with how far we go with this phallic humor. I believe it could be grounds for getting castrated, uh I meant "banned."
[Moderator: Suspended 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy. Also, for having no sense of humor.]
QUOTE
We must be careful with how far we go with this phallic humor. I believe it could be grounds for getting castrated, uh I meant "banned." rolleyes.gif
"Hardly"
Walk softly, and carry a big schtick.
It's late, but y'all are still seminal in your humor.
It's late, but y'all are still seminal in your humor.
Wow, the competition is stiff around here.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 3 2009, 04:40 AM)
Wow, the competition is stiff around here.
Indeed, which member do you suppose is in the lead?
Indeed, which member do you suppose is in the lead?
Come on.
It's hard to follow this conversation.
It reminds me of pirates actually.
It's hard to follow this conversation.
It reminds me of pirates actually.
Arrgh, quiver me member.
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.