The word 'meme' is uniquely powerful in that it can describe anything from highbrow political concepts to lowbrow internet memes. I find it funny that most people (on the internet) are aware of both memes and Richard Dawkins, but are unaware of their connection. Anyway, the word 'meme' also reduces all ideas to a level playing field. In the world of memes, Marxism and LOLcats are on equal ground. Unfortunately, given just that qualification, all other ideas are equal, including atheism, religions and even worse ideas. So, on to my main point, I think that the reason why religion can be so attractive (as a meme) is that it provides a comforting pantheon of ideas which reward the believer for believing. Atheism, taken at its average form, does not have quite the ability to comfort that religions do.
I propose that we atheists find a common dream for the future and a common goal for our society. Christians dream of a world converted 100% to their belief system, even though they expect the world to end before then. On the other hand, atheists don't necessarily want the entire world to convert, and I would personally discourage any form of atheistic proselytization. I think that our end goal should be a world in which reason rules the public space. People can believe whatever myths they like, but they would know better than to bring those myths to work, to school or to the senate floor. Rational decision-making is our #1 priority. Critical Thinking is the key to rationality.
Given this, I would argue that atheism as a 'movement' should focus on education and education alone. Right now, we're not making as many friends as we would hope with our bus campaigns and other advertisements. Surveys say that people don't trust us, but I don't care. Not trusting a stereotype doesn't matter. One on one, humans are fairly reasonable. It's the crowd that makes us intolerant. As atheists, presenting a united front of 'Atheism" is only going to reinforce the stereotype that we are a culture destroying, godless force of evil. Instead, if we focus more on ensuring that children learn useful mental tools like critical thinking, I think that ( a ) we will have an easier time of "flying under the radar," and ( b ) we will find more allies than we have now. I'm not saying that we aren't already doing this, but I think that funds currently devoted to advertising would be more usefully spent on advocating education reform.
If Critical Thinking becomes a more widespread talent, atheism will naturally become more common. At that point, we can just say "OOPS! Who could have seen that coming?"
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 26 2009, 01:16 PM)
Christians dream of a world converted 100% to their belief system, even though they expect the world to end before then.
In practice this may be true of many "Christians," but in theory at least, Christians are supposed to forgive and love non-believers. This is actually the reason they are proselytizing. They don't need to actually convert you - they just need to affirm that they don't believe God hates you and will foresake you for not believing.
You don't call the public assertion of the non-existence of God(s) proselytization? What about the baiting and bullying of faith in this forum and elsewhere? What about the relentless use of materialism to ridicule belief in a supernatural? That's not proselytizing?
In practice this may be true of many "Christians," but in theory at least, Christians are supposed to forgive and love non-believers. This is actually the reason they are proselytizing. They don't need to actually convert you - they just need to affirm that they don't believe God hates you and will foresake you for not believing.
QUOTE
On the other hand, atheists don't necessarily want the entire world to convert, and I would personally discourage any form of atheistic proselytization.
You don't call the public assertion of the non-existence of God(s) proselytization? What about the baiting and bullying of faith in this forum and elsewhere? What about the relentless use of materialism to ridicule belief in a supernatural? That's not proselytizing?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 10:08 AM)
In practice this may be true of many "Christians," but in theory at least, Christians are supposed to forgive and love non-believers. This is actually the reason they are proselytizing. They don't need to actually convert you - they just need to affirm that they don't believe God hates you and will foresake you for not believing.
Ever heard of The Great Commission? The ultimate goal of Christianity is, and always has been, to "save the whole world."
This is a science forum. Bringing religion here is a stupid idea.
Besides, I do not publicly represent atheism, and if I ever do, I will not tie myself back to this forum.
Ever heard of The Great Commission? The ultimate goal of Christianity is, and always has been, to "save the whole world."
QUOTE
You don't call the public assertion of the non-existence of God(s) proselytization? What about the baiting and bullying of faith in this forum and elsewhere? What about the relentless use of materialism to ridicule belief in a supernatural? That's not proselytizing?
This is a science forum. Bringing religion here is a stupid idea.
Besides, I do not publicly represent atheism, and if I ever do, I will not tie myself back to this forum.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 26 2009, 02:15 PM)
Ever heard of The Great Commission? The ultimate goal of Christianity is, and always has been, to "save the whole world."
Yes, of course the ideal would be to save every person. But if every person could be saved, then they wouldn't need to be forgiven, would they? I was going to post the bible verse where someone asks Jesus how often they should forgive their enemies, 7? and Jesus replies 77 times 7, or something like that. I decided not to do it because it probably annoys you when people post bible citations.
Yes, I have to admit that I am always surprised and dismayed a little that there are so many discussions about religion on this forum. Since I have insights that I feel are worth sharing on religious topics, I always feel the need to get into such discussions, but the reason I originally found and liked this forum was for the science content.
I don't actually publicly represent Christianity except to the extent I would feel dishonest if I claimed not to see any value in the ideas and teachings. I'm actually more of an atheist who came to believe in God as a human ideological and spiritual phenomenon. Only once I did that, I no longer saw the difference between believing in God that way and believing in Him as an omnipotent force in the universe.
Still, I think all the negativity toward religion on this forum and elsewhere constitutes atheist proselytizing. I think it's interesting that you skipped that issue in your reply to my post.
Yes, of course the ideal would be to save every person. But if every person could be saved, then they wouldn't need to be forgiven, would they? I was going to post the bible verse where someone asks Jesus how often they should forgive their enemies, 7? and Jesus replies 77 times 7, or something like that. I decided not to do it because it probably annoys you when people post bible citations.
QUOTE
This is a science forum. Bringing religion here is a stupid idea.
Besides, I do not publicly represent atheism, and if I ever do, I will not tie myself back to this forum.
Besides, I do not publicly represent atheism, and if I ever do, I will not tie myself back to this forum.
Yes, I have to admit that I am always surprised and dismayed a little that there are so many discussions about religion on this forum. Since I have insights that I feel are worth sharing on religious topics, I always feel the need to get into such discussions, but the reason I originally found and liked this forum was for the science content.
I don't actually publicly represent Christianity except to the extent I would feel dishonest if I claimed not to see any value in the ideas and teachings. I'm actually more of an atheist who came to believe in God as a human ideological and spiritual phenomenon. Only once I did that, I no longer saw the difference between believing in God that way and believing in Him as an omnipotent force in the universe.
Still, I think all the negativity toward religion on this forum and elsewhere constitutes atheist proselytizing. I think it's interesting that you skipped that issue in your reply to my post.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 11:20 AM)
Yes, of course the ideal would be to save every person. But if every person could be saved, then they wouldn't need to be forgiven, would they?
Last time I checked, Christians need to be forgiven too. Did they suddenly become sinless when they first prayed to Jesus?
I think you are confusing science with idle speculation. Some of your ideas are interesting, but most of them are ideas that have been around 10+ years in some circles. I somehow doubt the originality of some of these ideas.
I think you are confusing science with idle speculation. Some of your ideas are interesting, but most of them are ideas that have been around 10+ years in some circles. I somehow doubt the originality of some of these ideas.
I'm actually more of an atheist who came to believe in God as a human ideological and spiritual phenomenon.
There are two kinds of atheists. Those who reject the idea of god on a logical basis, and those who reject god for other reasons. If you fall into the latter category, then you are vulnerable to conversion to theism. The former has already decided that god cannot logically exist, and thus is much less likely to be converted.
If I am proselytizing, where are my converts? My goal is to demonstrate to religious people the logical problem with their beliefs. Everyone should reconsider their beliefs, and many if not most religious people have completely failed to give their beliefs a logical analysis.
Last time I checked, Christians need to be forgiven too. Did they suddenly become sinless when they first prayed to Jesus?
QUOTE
Since I have insights that I feel are worth sharing on religious topics, I always feel the need to get into such discussions, but the reason I originally found and liked this forum was for the science content.
I think you are confusing science with idle speculation. Some of your ideas are interesting, but most of them are ideas that have been around 10+ years in some circles. I somehow doubt the originality of some of these ideas.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since I have insights that I feel are worth sharing on religious topics, I always feel the need to get into such discussions, but the reason I originally found and liked this forum was for the science content. |
I think you are confusing science with idle speculation. Some of your ideas are interesting, but most of them are ideas that have been around 10+ years in some circles. I somehow doubt the originality of some of these ideas.
I'm actually more of an atheist who came to believe in God as a human ideological and spiritual phenomenon.
There are two kinds of atheists. Those who reject the idea of god on a logical basis, and those who reject god for other reasons. If you fall into the latter category, then you are vulnerable to conversion to theism. The former has already decided that god cannot logically exist, and thus is much less likely to be converted.
QUOTE
Still, I think all the negativity toward religion on this forum and elsewhere constitutes atheist proselytizing. I think it's interesting that you skipped that issue in your reply to my post.
If I am proselytizing, where are my converts? My goal is to demonstrate to religious people the logical problem with their beliefs. Everyone should reconsider their beliefs, and many if not most religious people have completely failed to give their beliefs a logical analysis.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 26 2009, 03:37 PM)
Last time I checked, Christians need to be forgiven too. Did they suddenly become sinless when they first prayed to Jesus?
Great point. You demonstrate Christian wisdom that many "Christians" lack.
Why would I worry about the relative originality of my insights and ideas. If I know of their source, I would of course cite that to avoid plagiarizing, but the truth is that I have discovered essentially the same ideas in radically distinct discourses, so I am skeptical of the claim that science doesn't rehash old wine in new skins, intentionally or unintentionally. I think the more important issue is that knowledge gets translated into fresh relevance through new discussions.
Why would I worry about the relative originality of my insights and ideas. If I know of their source, I would of course cite that to avoid plagiarizing, but the truth is that I have discovered essentially the same ideas in radically distinct discourses, so I am skeptical of the claim that science doesn't rehash old wine in new skins, intentionally or unintentionally. I think the more important issue is that knowledge gets translated into fresh relevance through new discussions.
There are two kinds of atheists. Those who reject the idea of god on a logical basis, and those who reject god for other reasons. If you fall into the latter category, then you are vulnerable to conversion to theism. The former has already decided that god cannot logically exist, and thus is much less likely to be converted.
I reject(ed) the idea of gods on a logical basis. Then I rejected the universal applicability of logic, ironically on a logical basis. So I guess you could say my theism comes from logical skepticism of the atheist rejection of God, because God is rejected on the assumption that He must exist as a physical entity outside consiousness. So, I guess you could say I came to see atheism as a strawman argument against the thing whose existence it claim to deny (while actually reacting to it).
You don't think that the arguments against theism posted on this forum have succeeding in tempting people to doubt the existence or relevance of God/theism? I wouldn't underestimate the power of logic and intellectual bullying.
My faith is not vulnerable because it does not rely on the assumption of a physical being, but for those that do require this criteria, their faith is. I don't really mind that such faith gets undermined, because it strikes me as a kind of false-idol worship, and really atheism is an ideological version of the kind of strong iconoclasm that accompanied the protestant revolution.
Still, atheism seems to me to be a kind of purgatory state in between the death of God within one's spirit and the rebirth of God as a purely spiritual entity. So I feel a little sorry for people who are caught in the logical conflict between rejecting God on the basis of His physical impossibility and having to contend with His indestructibility as a fixture of culture and spirit.
Great point. You demonstrate Christian wisdom that many "Christians" lack.
QUOTE
I think you are confusing science with idle speculation. Some of your ideas are interesting, but most of them are ideas that have been around 10+ years in some circles. I somehow doubt the originality of some of these ideas.
Why would I worry about the relative originality of my insights and ideas. If I know of their source, I would of course cite that to avoid plagiarizing, but the truth is that I have discovered essentially the same ideas in radically distinct discourses, so I am skeptical of the claim that science doesn't rehash old wine in new skins, intentionally or unintentionally. I think the more important issue is that knowledge gets translated into fresh relevance through new discussions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you are confusing science with idle speculation. Some of your ideas are interesting, but most of them are ideas that have been around 10+ years in some circles. I somehow doubt the originality of some of these ideas. |
Why would I worry about the relative originality of my insights and ideas. If I know of their source, I would of course cite that to avoid plagiarizing, but the truth is that I have discovered essentially the same ideas in radically distinct discourses, so I am skeptical of the claim that science doesn't rehash old wine in new skins, intentionally or unintentionally. I think the more important issue is that knowledge gets translated into fresh relevance through new discussions.
There are two kinds of atheists. Those who reject the idea of god on a logical basis, and those who reject god for other reasons. If you fall into the latter category, then you are vulnerable to conversion to theism. The former has already decided that god cannot logically exist, and thus is much less likely to be converted.
I reject(ed) the idea of gods on a logical basis. Then I rejected the universal applicability of logic, ironically on a logical basis. So I guess you could say my theism comes from logical skepticism of the atheist rejection of God, because God is rejected on the assumption that He must exist as a physical entity outside consiousness. So, I guess you could say I came to see atheism as a strawman argument against the thing whose existence it claim to deny (while actually reacting to it).
QUOTE
If I am proselytizing, where are my converts? My goal is to demonstrate to religious people the logical problem with their beliefs. Everyone should reconsider their beliefs, and many if not most religious people have completely failed to give their beliefs a logical analysis.
You don't think that the arguments against theism posted on this forum have succeeding in tempting people to doubt the existence or relevance of God/theism? I wouldn't underestimate the power of logic and intellectual bullying.
My faith is not vulnerable because it does not rely on the assumption of a physical being, but for those that do require this criteria, their faith is. I don't really mind that such faith gets undermined, because it strikes me as a kind of false-idol worship, and really atheism is an ideological version of the kind of strong iconoclasm that accompanied the protestant revolution.
Still, atheism seems to me to be a kind of purgatory state in between the death of God within one's spirit and the rebirth of God as a purely spiritual entity. So I feel a little sorry for people who are caught in the logical conflict between rejecting God on the basis of His physical impossibility and having to contend with His indestructibility as a fixture of culture and spirit.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 04:07 PM)
My faith is not vulnerable because it does not rely on the assumption of a physical being, but for those that do require this criteria, their faith is.
If your old beliefs relied on a physical being for God then you didn't pay attention during Sunday School.
If your old beliefs relied on a physical being for God then you didn't pay attention during Sunday School.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 04:12 PM)
If your old beliefs relied on a physical being for God then you didn't pay attention during Sunday School.
I've always wondered whether people teaching theism to children understand the metaphors they use as metaphors, or if they think they are teaching about actual (non-metaphorical) entities.
I have heard that Catholicism distinguishes itself from other denominations by the belief that the sacrament actually IS the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol of it. I assume they mean the physical act of giving mass and not the crackers and wine, but who knows.
Do you actually believe what was taught in Sunday School, or do you just maintain it in order to reject it? If it's the latter, why do you criticize me for going beyond it?
I've always wondered whether people teaching theism to children understand the metaphors they use as metaphors, or if they think they are teaching about actual (non-metaphorical) entities.
I have heard that Catholicism distinguishes itself from other denominations by the belief that the sacrament actually IS the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol of it. I assume they mean the physical act of giving mass and not the crackers and wine, but who knows.
Do you actually believe what was taught in Sunday School, or do you just maintain it in order to reject it? If it's the latter, why do you criticize me for going beyond it?
There are people who are studying to be Jedi Knights.
You should join them.
That way you don't have to defile other people's beliefs.
Christianity is not a system of metaphors. It is a belief system.
All you are doing is pulling a dishonest bait and switch.
You say you are talking about Christianity but you are not.
You should join them.
That way you don't have to defile other people's beliefs.
Christianity is not a system of metaphors. It is a belief system.
All you are doing is pulling a dishonest bait and switch.
You say you are talking about Christianity but you are not.
light in the tunnel,
Your views on god are apparent to you and you alone. You either lack a clear idea of what you think god is, or you lack the ability to spell out what that belief is. Either way, you believe that there is a being capable of creating universes and answering prayers. Whatever THAT is, it is illogical. The universe shows no telltale signs that would indicate a creator. So, either your "god" really doesn't like scientists, or he/she/it doesn't exist.
Your views on god are apparent to you and you alone. You either lack a clear idea of what you think god is, or you lack the ability to spell out what that belief is. Either way, you believe that there is a being capable of creating universes and answering prayers. Whatever THAT is, it is illogical. The universe shows no telltale signs that would indicate a creator. So, either your "god" really doesn't like scientists, or he/she/it doesn't exist.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 26 2009, 05:31 PM)
...either your "god" really doesn't like scientists, or he/she/it doesn't exist.
Nice, and I will add that the universe must adore scientists, because it has revealed so much of itself to them (The "technical-proficiency-to-reach-the-
moon-monolith" 2001 Space Odyssey shtick).
Or the "reality" technical mastery of Bell Lab's "Horn", culminating in the reaching of the Lagrange 2 point, with CMB probes (latest photos):
sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/eb/Planck_FirstLight_Compos02_image02_hi.jpg
(courtesy: ESA)
Perhaps the supposedly denser RED is dark matter.
That would leave the YELLOW and LIGHT GREEN to be regular matter.
And the darker BLUE and BLACK as the infant spatial regions.
(Note all cosmic intelligence freaks...maybe they should throw away the bibles and start trying to translate this "universe operation manual" font).
Nice, and I will add that the universe must adore scientists, because it has revealed so much of itself to them (The "technical-proficiency-to-reach-the-
moon-monolith" 2001 Space Odyssey shtick).
Or the "reality" technical mastery of Bell Lab's "Horn", culminating in the reaching of the Lagrange 2 point, with CMB probes (latest photos):
sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/eb/Planck_FirstLight_Compos02_image02_hi.jpg
(courtesy: ESA)
Perhaps the supposedly denser RED is dark matter.
That would leave the YELLOW and LIGHT GREEN to be regular matter.
And the darker BLUE and BLACK as the infant spatial regions.
(Note all cosmic intelligence freaks...maybe they should throw away the bibles and start trying to translate this "universe operation manual" font).
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 10:20 AM)
Still, I think all the negativity toward religion on this forum and elsewhere constitutes atheist proselytizing. I think it's interesting that you skipped that issue in your reply to my post.
What a dumb thing to think... It is the religious folk who provoke such discussions. It's as if you started telling a Hindu that he was wrong about his faith, then whined that he was trying to convert you when he responded.
What a dumb thing to think... It is the religious folk who provoke such discussions. It's as if you started telling a Hindu that he was wrong about his faith, then whined that he was trying to convert you when he responded.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 04:26 PM)
I've always wondered whether people teaching theism to children understand the metaphors they use as metaphors, or if they think they are teaching about actual (non-metaphorical) entities.
Then you're not very observant. Many people believe that they are teaching their kids honest to "god" historical fact.
Go talk to a Jehovah's Witness or a conservative Southern Baptist and get back with me on your "wondering".
Honestly, your ignorance is shining through on that one.
Then you're not very observant. Many people believe that they are teaching their kids honest to "god" historical fact.
Go talk to a Jehovah's Witness or a conservative Southern Baptist and get back with me on your "wondering".
Honestly, your ignorance is shining through on that one.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 26 2009, 07:49 PM)
Then you're not very observant. Many people believe that they are teaching their kids honest to "god" historical fact.
Go talk to a Jehovah's Witness or a conservative Southern Baptist and get back with me on your "wondering".
Honestly, your ignorance is shining through on that one.
The thing is that I am actually meeting with Jehovah's witnesses lately to learn more about their beliefs, and I don't get into debates about whether they are conscious of the material as metaphorical or not and which aspects are metaphorical to them and which aren't. In spriritual subjectivity the distinction between metaphor and whatever exists outside of metaphors gets blurred.
I just use my conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language to tap into their spiritual experiences and knowledge. The more I practice using this language myself, the better I can cultivate the same experience in myself. I'm not completely open to internalizing and subjecting myself to any spiritual experience, though. I'm not going to go into life-negative satan worship or something like that because it will make me unhappy, potentially upset and fearful, maybe give me nightmares. I don't mind exploring happy ideas because those are good for my emotional health. Spiritual knowledge is a lot like food. Eat the right food and you'll feel good and be healthy. Eat junk food and sweets and your teeth will rot and you'll feel like crap.
It's the same with science, isn't it? If you use your knowledge to build weapons, you'll feel bad about yourself and probably end up in trouble with the law. If you create or help create constructive technologies, you'll feel good about yourself and contribute to cultural progress.
Go talk to a Jehovah's Witness or a conservative Southern Baptist and get back with me on your "wondering".
Honestly, your ignorance is shining through on that one.
The thing is that I am actually meeting with Jehovah's witnesses lately to learn more about their beliefs, and I don't get into debates about whether they are conscious of the material as metaphorical or not and which aspects are metaphorical to them and which aren't. In spriritual subjectivity the distinction between metaphor and whatever exists outside of metaphors gets blurred.
I just use my conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language to tap into their spiritual experiences and knowledge. The more I practice using this language myself, the better I can cultivate the same experience in myself. I'm not completely open to internalizing and subjecting myself to any spiritual experience, though. I'm not going to go into life-negative satan worship or something like that because it will make me unhappy, potentially upset and fearful, maybe give me nightmares. I don't mind exploring happy ideas because those are good for my emotional health. Spiritual knowledge is a lot like food. Eat the right food and you'll feel good and be healthy. Eat junk food and sweets and your teeth will rot and you'll feel like crap.
It's the same with science, isn't it? If you use your knowledge to build weapons, you'll feel bad about yourself and probably end up in trouble with the law. If you create or help create constructive technologies, you'll feel good about yourself and contribute to cultural progress.
If they believe it then they don't think of it as a metaphor.
You are simply looking for loopholes and escape clauses.
If you believe it as a metaphor then you don't believe it as a Truth.
And whatever you think of the A-bomb makes no difference to what it did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Spiritual knowledge is like the mayflies diet.
You are simply looking for loopholes and escape clauses.
If you believe it as a metaphor then you don't believe it as a Truth.
And whatever you think of the A-bomb makes no difference to what it did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Spiritual knowledge is like the mayflies diet.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 27 2009, 12:42 AM)
I'm not going to go into life-negative satan worship or something like that because it will make me unhappy, potentially upset and fearful, maybe give me nightmares. I don't mind exploring happy ideas because those are good for my emotional health. Spiritual knowledge is a lot like food. Eat the right food and you'll feel good and be healthy. Eat junk food and sweets and your teeth will rot and you'll feel like crap.
It's the same with science, isn't it? If you use your knowledge to build weapons, you'll feel bad about yourself and probably end up in trouble with the law. If you create or help create constructive technologies, you'll feel good about yourself and contribute to cultural progress.
So then ... is there some inherent value/philosophical difference between um ... say learning about (and thereby "exploring") Necrotizing Fasciitis and Streptococcus Thermophilus?
Learning about one because it's "constructive" and choosing not to learn about the other because it's "destructive" lead to different states of emotional health?
That's whacked.
If you believe what you've said above then I think you must agree with my proposition. And if you do ... then you're sophistry is showing.
It's the same with science, isn't it? If you use your knowledge to build weapons, you'll feel bad about yourself and probably end up in trouble with the law. If you create or help create constructive technologies, you'll feel good about yourself and contribute to cultural progress.
So then ... is there some inherent value/philosophical difference between um ... say learning about (and thereby "exploring") Necrotizing Fasciitis and Streptococcus Thermophilus?
Learning about one because it's "constructive" and choosing not to learn about the other because it's "destructive" lead to different states of emotional health?
That's whacked.
If you believe what you've said above then I think you must agree with my proposition. And if you do ... then you're sophistry is showing.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 27 2009, 12:42 AM)
I just use my conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language to tap into their spiritual experiences and knowledge. The more I practice using this language myself, the better I can cultivate the same experience in myself. I'm not completely open to internalizing and subjecting myself to any spiritual experience, though. I'm not going to go into life-negative satan worship or something like that because it will make me unhappy, potentially upset and fearful, maybe give me nightmares. I don't mind exploring happy ideas because those are good for my emotional health. Spiritual knowledge is a lot like food. Eat the right food and you'll feel good and be healthy. Eat junk food and sweets and your teeth will rot and you'll feel like crap.
I'm very happy for you. But there are many who do not see it that way. And they try to legislate what should be taught in a science class.
I'm very happy for you. But there are many who do not see it that way. And they try to legislate what should be taught in a science class.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 26 2009, 08:42 PM)
.
I just use my conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language to tap into their spiritual experiences and knowledge.
Good. We now have someone this place has needed for a long time. A metaphor expert.
I've always wondered what this verse from the Book of Dylan means. You are familiar with the Book of Dylan, aren't you? Sure you are.
"No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late"
Tease out the deep spiritual meaning in it. It must refer to the end times and rapture, don't you think?
I just use my conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language to tap into their spiritual experiences and knowledge.
Good. We now have someone this place has needed for a long time. A metaphor expert.
I've always wondered what this verse from the Book of Dylan means. You are familiar with the Book of Dylan, aren't you? Sure you are.
"No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late"
Tease out the deep spiritual meaning in it. It must refer to the end times and rapture, don't you think?
QUOTE (orestis+Oct 27 2009, 08:32 AM)
"No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late"
Tease out the deep spiritual meaning in it. It must refer to the end times and rapture, don't you think?
By "end times and rapture" do you mean "the nuking of the twelve colonies and the near extinction of humanity?" Because that is what I was thinking
Seriously though, that song is amazing. Every version of that song is amazing.
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late"
Tease out the deep spiritual meaning in it. It must refer to the end times and rapture, don't you think?
By "end times and rapture" do you mean "the nuking of the twelve colonies and the near extinction of humanity?" Because that is what I was thinking
Seriously though, that song is amazing. Every version of that song is amazing.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 27 2009, 10:43 AM)
By "end times and rapture" do you mean "the nuking of the twelve colonies and the near extinction of humanity?" Because that is what I was thinking
Seriously though, that song is amazing. Every version of that song is amazing.
I thought it was either a description of a night spent in jail or a discussion between the two bandits hung up on crosses with The Man.
That's the joy of metaphors, they can have any kind of meaning.
But shoot, no reason to get confused, I kindly spoke. We have someone here around us, who has "conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language."
Hopefully they will respond to the request and tell us The Truth.
Seriously though, that song is amazing. Every version of that song is amazing.
I thought it was either a description of a night spent in jail or a discussion between the two bandits hung up on crosses with The Man.
That's the joy of metaphors, they can have any kind of meaning.
But shoot, no reason to get confused, I kindly spoke. We have someone here around us, who has "conceptual understanding and literacy of metaphorical language."
Hopefully they will respond to the request and tell us The Truth.
QUOTE (orestis+Oct 27 2009, 12:32 PM)
Good. We now have someone this place has needed for a long time. A metaphor expert.
I've always wondered what this verse from the Book of Dylan means. You are familiar with the Book of Dylan, aren't you? Sure you are.
"No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late"
Tease out the deep spiritual meaning in it. It must refer to the end times and rapture, don't you think?
I don't see the metaphor in this. It seems more like metonymy if "thief" is used as a specific in place of "sinner" more generally. A thief could be a thief of property, life, freedom, truth, whatever. Basically anyone who takes something away from someone else, material or spiritual.
"feel(ing) that life is but a joke" = sophistic abandonment of virtue and truth in one's actions?
"But uh . . ."
"been through that And this is not our fate" = The sinner has recognized the sin and been reborn in sincerity?
"So let us not talk falsely now The hours getting late" = no time to waste in pursuing truth/light/sincerity/virtue instead of sophism?
I think you're right about "end of times and rapture" but my view of these things is internal instead of external, so I think it fits better than the external idea of the world ending for everyone and Christ physically returning as an external entity.
I see the resurrection as first happening to Mary when she visited Jesus's tomb and found it empty and asked who she thought was the gardener where Jesus' body was, and he told her that it was Him and not to touch him but to go forth to the others and tell them that everyone is going to ascend to the Father.
But even though I think this happened to Mary because of Jesus' crucifixion, and continues to happen to people spiritually when they understand the resurrection and becoming His body, etc., I also think it may have happened with some people while Jesus was still alive and teaching spiritual rebirth. I'm not 100% on my understanding of this, but that idea of rebirth seems connected to the crucifixion and resurrection and, hence, the "second coming."
"End of times" from a personal spiritual perspective might be a way of describing the experience preceding being "born again" in spirit. I.e. a feeling that the world is ending and certain death is immanent. I don't think this happens to many people until they actually die, but it's interesting to read about near-death-experiences and the common reports of a feeling of deep peace, ascending into a light, etc.
Anyway, I knew this text from this song, but I've never thought about it or analyzed it until now. It seems to be more meaningful than I would have thought.
I've always wondered what this verse from the Book of Dylan means. You are familiar with the Book of Dylan, aren't you? Sure you are.
"No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late"
Tease out the deep spiritual meaning in it. It must refer to the end times and rapture, don't you think?
I don't see the metaphor in this. It seems more like metonymy if "thief" is used as a specific in place of "sinner" more generally. A thief could be a thief of property, life, freedom, truth, whatever. Basically anyone who takes something away from someone else, material or spiritual.
"feel(ing) that life is but a joke" = sophistic abandonment of virtue and truth in one's actions?
"But uh . . ."
"been through that And this is not our fate" = The sinner has recognized the sin and been reborn in sincerity?
"So let us not talk falsely now The hours getting late" = no time to waste in pursuing truth/light/sincerity/virtue instead of sophism?
I think you're right about "end of times and rapture" but my view of these things is internal instead of external, so I think it fits better than the external idea of the world ending for everyone and Christ physically returning as an external entity.
I see the resurrection as first happening to Mary when she visited Jesus's tomb and found it empty and asked who she thought was the gardener where Jesus' body was, and he told her that it was Him and not to touch him but to go forth to the others and tell them that everyone is going to ascend to the Father.
But even though I think this happened to Mary because of Jesus' crucifixion, and continues to happen to people spiritually when they understand the resurrection and becoming His body, etc., I also think it may have happened with some people while Jesus was still alive and teaching spiritual rebirth. I'm not 100% on my understanding of this, but that idea of rebirth seems connected to the crucifixion and resurrection and, hence, the "second coming."
"End of times" from a personal spiritual perspective might be a way of describing the experience preceding being "born again" in spirit. I.e. a feeling that the world is ending and certain death is immanent. I don't think this happens to many people until they actually die, but it's interesting to read about near-death-experiences and the common reports of a feeling of deep peace, ascending into a light, etc.
Anyway, I knew this text from this song, but I've never thought about it or analyzed it until now. It seems to be more meaningful than I would have thought.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 28 2009, 01:09 AM)
... I've never thought about it ...
I'd propose that every post you make include this statement as part of a preamble where you admit you're an idiot.
Someone ban this poser.
I'd propose that every post you make include this statement as part of a preamble where you admit you're an idiot.
Someone ban this poser.
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.