QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 5 2009, 09:51 PM)
I'm suprised you don't count what happened to George Lucas as evidence, and then by extention, his movies.
What happened to him, and why should it be extended to which of his movies?
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Nov 6 2009, 03:08 PM)
Wait, I have an idea... I'll just dump religion, that should take care of it.
<imagine the sound of a toilet flushing>
You don't have to cling to a particular religion in order to try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. In fact I really doubt you could think about it realistically if you tried to.
<imagine the sound of a toilet flushing>
You don't have to cling to a particular religion in order to try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. In fact I really doubt you could think about it realistically if you tried to.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 11 2009, 05:09 PM)
You don't have to cling to a particular religion in order to try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. In fact I really doubt you could think about it realistically if you tried to.
The problem is not with the existence of a higher being, the problem is the definition... xians have an issue if it isn't JC and Big Daddy who both seem to be white, bearded and noble... and the same xians seem to have a propensity for gods that are in the habit of wiping out the world every so often, and hoisting their kid up on a stick for some kind of vulgar offering... pretty cool. Big Daddy makes the mistake and JC gets to pay for it...
MM
The problem is not with the existence of a higher being, the problem is the definition... xians have an issue if it isn't JC and Big Daddy who both seem to be white, bearded and noble... and the same xians seem to have a propensity for gods that are in the habit of wiping out the world every so often, and hoisting their kid up on a stick for some kind of vulgar offering... pretty cool. Big Daddy makes the mistake and JC gets to pay for it...
MM
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 11 2009, 05:09 PM)
You don't have to cling to a particular religion in order to try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence. In fact I really doubt you could think about it realistically if you tried to.
But to think realistically about the existence you have to be willing to say there is no evidence of it's existence when there is no evidence.
When you keep insisting in the existence of something that is not being realistic.
But to think realistically about the existence you have to be willing to say there is no evidence of it's existence when there is no evidence.
When you keep insisting in the existence of something that is not being realistic.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 11 2009, 05:06 PM)
What happened to him, and why should it be extended to which of his movies?
He was out driving when he was young. He was wearing his seatbelt when he lost control of his car. But the seatbelt broke. (how often have you heard of that happening?) He was thrown from the car and car ended up wrapped around a tree with the driver compartment crushed.
Had the seatbelt not given way he would have been killed.
Afterwards he said he felt as if there was a "force" at work.
The only reason you have given for believing of discussing God is that you were almost killed but somehow were saved.
So if space aliens saved your life don't you think they were also involved in saving his?
And maybe he made movies about them.
And I think the poster who asked about E.T. did not mean specifically E.T. but rather meant E.T. or Yoda or the Navigator or the Kilrathi or the Greys etc.
He was out driving when he was young. He was wearing his seatbelt when he lost control of his car. But the seatbelt broke. (how often have you heard of that happening?) He was thrown from the car and car ended up wrapped around a tree with the driver compartment crushed.
Had the seatbelt not given way he would have been killed.
Afterwards he said he felt as if there was a "force" at work.
The only reason you have given for believing of discussing God is that you were almost killed but somehow were saved.
So if space aliens saved your life don't you think they were also involved in saving his?
And maybe he made movies about them.
And I think the poster who asked about E.T. did not mean specifically E.T. but rather meant E.T. or Yoda or the Navigator or the Kilrathi or the Greys etc.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Nov 11 2009, 07:06 PM)
The problem is not with the existence of a higher being, the problem is the definition... xians have an issue if it isn't JC and Big Daddy who both seem to be white, bearded and noble...
If God exists I believe he would not be restricted to any particular form or gender. It doesn't matter to me what other people believe about it, and certainly doesn't restrict my thinking to theirs. If you let it slow you down, or stop you, then that's your thing.
If God exists I believe he would not be restricted to any particular form or gender. It doesn't matter to me what other people believe about it, and certainly doesn't restrict my thinking to theirs. If you let it slow you down, or stop you, then that's your thing.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
and the same xians seem to have a propensity for gods that are in the habit of wiping out the world every so often, and hoisting their kid up on a stick for some kind of vulgar offering... pretty cool. Big Daddy makes the mistake and JC gets to pay for it...
MM
The idea is that God came in part--to whatever extent--as Jesus and went through what he did. We don't know exactly why, but I'm guessing part of it is so he will have gone through living and dying like we will, and died in a very bad way. So when you die and want to complain about how hard you had it he can honestly say that he went through it too. And what they say is that he did it for "us"....not necessarily including people like yourself, but for those of us who are capable of appreciating at least to some extent what he did. If he actually did all that then he has bigger balls than anyone we will ever meet.
MM
The idea is that God came in part--to whatever extent--as Jesus and went through what he did. We don't know exactly why, but I'm guessing part of it is so he will have gone through living and dying like we will, and died in a very bad way. So when you die and want to complain about how hard you had it he can honestly say that he went through it too. And what they say is that he did it for "us"....not necessarily including people like yourself, but for those of us who are capable of appreciating at least to some extent what he did. If he actually did all that then he has bigger balls than anyone we will ever meet.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 11 2009, 07:31 PM)
But to think realistically about the existence you have to be willing to say there is no evidence of it's existence when there is no evidence.
When you keep insisting in the existence of something that is not being realistic.
Here's a clue for you that you will not be able to comprehend much less appreciate:
If there was no evidence of God's existence then no one would believe he exists.
Since several people do believe he exists, that means there must be some evidence that he does even if in reality he does not. That's a very basic fact, but you can't even get that far. In contrast to yourself there are other people who evaluate evidence to see how much of it they can consider to be truly miraculous...
When you keep insisting in the existence of something that is not being realistic.
Here's a clue for you that you will not be able to comprehend much less appreciate:
If there was no evidence of God's existence then no one would believe he exists.
Since several people do believe he exists, that means there must be some evidence that he does even if in reality he does not. That's a very basic fact, but you can't even get that far. In contrast to yourself there are other people who evaluate evidence to see how much of it they can consider to be truly miraculous...
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 11 2009, 07:43 PM)
He was out driving when he was young. He was wearing his seatbelt when he lost control of his car. But the seatbelt broke. (how often have you heard of that happening?) He was thrown from the car and car ended up wrapped around a tree with the driver compartment crushed.
Had the seatbelt not given way he would have been killed.
Afterwards he said he felt as if there was a "force" at work.
A number of people have had similar experiences and said similar things. Associating the term "force" with him is no doubt something the media couldn't resist cashing in on in whatever ways they have done so.
Had the seatbelt not given way he would have been killed.
Afterwards he said he felt as if there was a "force" at work.
A number of people have had similar experiences and said similar things. Associating the term "force" with him is no doubt something the media couldn't resist cashing in on in whatever ways they have done so.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The only reason you have given for believing of discussing God is that you were almost killed but somehow were saved.
More than once, and I know other people who have had even more impressive things happen to them.
More than once, and I know other people who have had even more impressive things happen to them.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
So if space aliens saved your life don't you think they were also involved in saving his?
If God exists I believe he has helped a lot of people, and also that he would have to be an alien. That being the case I have no reason to doubt that God helped him too.
If God exists I believe he has helped a lot of people, and also that he would have to be an alien. That being the case I have no reason to doubt that God helped him too.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And maybe he made movies about them.
And I think the poster who asked about E.T. did not mean specifically E.T. but rather meant E.T. or Yoda or the Navigator or the Kilrathi or the Greys etc.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
And I think the poster who asked about E.T. did not mean specifically E.T. but rather meant E.T. or Yoda or the Navigator or the Kilrathi or the Greys etc.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 12 2009, 06:19 PM)
Here's a clue for you that you will not be able to comprehend much less appreciate:
If there was no evidence of God's existence then no one would believe he exists.
Since several people do believe he exists, that means there must be some evidence that he does even if in reality he does not. That's a very basic fact, but you can't even get that far. In contrast to yourself there are other people who evaluate evidence to see how much of it they can consider to be truly miraculous...
Very bad logic.
Why do you think that people need evidence to believe something?
There are lots of things people mistakenly believe is evidence.
Some think mere existence is evidence of God.
Therefore people don't need "Evidence" to believe in God.
If there was no evidence of God's existence then no one would believe he exists.
Since several people do believe he exists, that means there must be some evidence that he does even if in reality he does not. That's a very basic fact, but you can't even get that far. In contrast to yourself there are other people who evaluate evidence to see how much of it they can consider to be truly miraculous...
Very bad logic.
Why do you think that people need evidence to believe something?
There are lots of things people mistakenly believe is evidence.
Some think mere existence is evidence of God.
Therefore people don't need "Evidence" to believe in God.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 12 2009, 01:26 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The only reason you have given for believing of discussing God is that you were almost killed but somehow were saved.
More than once, and I know other people who have had even more impressive things happen to them.
More than once, and I know other people who have had even more impressive things happen to them.
Fortuna favet fatuis.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 12 2009, 06:26 PM)
A number of people have had similar experiences and said similar things. Associating the term "force" with him is no doubt something the media couldn't resist cashing in on in whatever ways they have done so.
If God exists I believe he has helped a lot of people, and also that he would have to be an alien. That being the case I have no reason to doubt that God helped him too.
If God exists I believe he has helped a lot of people, and also that he would have to be an alien. That being the case I have no reason to doubt that God helped him too.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And maybe he made movies about them.
And I think the poster who asked about E.T. did not mean specifically E.T. but rather meant E.T. or Yoda or the Navigator or the Kilrathi or the Greys etc.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
HE used the term "force" after and later in life.
You still don't understand probability and why those "similar experiences" mean exactly squat as far as evidence of God. You are still arguing from a position of ignorance.
And if God exists and has helped lots of people then he has also hurt as many and arbitrarily so.
You say God would not be restricted to one shape or gender. Are you saying he's omnipotent?
And the poster probably wasn't talking about form or gender, I think he was talking concept.
And I think the poster who asked about E.T. did not mean specifically E.T. but rather meant E.T. or Yoda or the Navigator or the Kilrathi or the Greys etc.
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
HE used the term "force" after and later in life.
You still don't understand probability and why those "similar experiences" mean exactly squat as far as evidence of God. You are still arguing from a position of ignorance.
And if God exists and has helped lots of people then he has also hurt as many and arbitrarily so.
You say God would not be restricted to one shape or gender. Are you saying he's omnipotent?
And the poster probably wasn't talking about form or gender, I think he was talking concept.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 12 2009, 06:15 PM)
If God exists I believe he would not be restricted to any particular form or gender. It doesn't matter to me what other people believe about it, and certainly doesn't restrict my thinking to theirs. If you let it slow you down, or stop you, then that's your thing.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
and the same xians seem to have a propensity for gods that are in the habit of wiping out the world every so often, and hoisting their kid up on a stick for some kind of vulgar offering... pretty cool. Big Daddy makes the mistake and JC gets to pay for it...
MM
The idea is that God came in part--to whatever extent--as Jesus and went through what he did. We don't know exactly why, but I'm guessing part of it is so he will have gone through living and dying like we will, and died in a very bad way. So when you die and want to complain about how hard you had it he can honestly say that he went through it too. And what they say is that he did it for "us"....not necessarily including people like yourself, but for those of us who are capable of appreciating at least to some extent what he did. If he actually did all that then he has bigger balls than anyone we will ever meet.
Like I said, if that is what it takes in order to stand in the presence of an omnipotent god, I opt out.
HE used the term "force" after and later in life.
You still don't understand probability and why those "similar experiences" mean exactly squat as far as evidence of God. You are still arguing from a position of ignorance.
Apparently so are you since you haven't been able to explain anything at all about it.
MM
The idea is that God came in part--to whatever extent--as Jesus and went through what he did. We don't know exactly why, but I'm guessing part of it is so he will have gone through living and dying like we will, and died in a very bad way. So when you die and want to complain about how hard you had it he can honestly say that he went through it too. And what they say is that he did it for "us"....not necessarily including people like yourself, but for those of us who are capable of appreciating at least to some extent what he did. If he actually did all that then he has bigger balls than anyone we will ever meet.
Like I said, if that is what it takes in order to stand in the presence of an omnipotent god, I opt out.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 5 2009, 08:06 PM)
The way Jesus entered the world is significant to those who can appreciate it, and of course meaningless to others of you who can't.
And the way the Easter Bunny distributes candy every year is significant to those who can appreciate it, and of course meaningless to others of you who can't.
And the way the Easter Bunny distributes candy every year is significant to those who can appreciate it, and of course meaningless to others of you who can't.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 13 2009, 02:44 PM)
And the way the Easter Bunny distributes candy every year is significant to those who can appreciate it
Try explaining how it could be.
Try explaining how it could be.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Nov 13 2009, 02:31 PM)
Like I said, if that is what it takes in order to stand in the presence of an omnipotent god, I opt out.
Not everyone has to get nailed to a cross afaik. My understanding is that you just have to have appreciation for God and ask him to be your Lord. I don't believe he's going to send all the Hindus, Muslims, Jews etc to Hell for not appreciating what Jesus did and went through, but I appreciate it none the less for their lack of.
Not everyone has to get nailed to a cross afaik. My understanding is that you just have to have appreciation for God and ask him to be your Lord. I don't believe he's going to send all the Hindus, Muslims, Jews etc to Hell for not appreciating what Jesus did and went through, but I appreciate it none the less for their lack of.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 12 2009, 07:20 PM)
Very bad logic.
Why do you think that people need evidence to believe something?
There are lots of things people mistakenly believe is evidence.
Some think mere existence is evidence of God.
Therefore people don't need "Evidence" to believe in God.
There is evidence to those who can recognise it, and there is none to those who can't. Some of us can even recognise things that are evidence to some other people even though they aren't evidence to us.
Why do you think that people need evidence to believe something?
There are lots of things people mistakenly believe is evidence.
Some think mere existence is evidence of God.
Therefore people don't need "Evidence" to believe in God.
There is evidence to those who can recognise it, and there is none to those who can't. Some of us can even recognise things that are evidence to some other people even though they aren't evidence to us.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 12 2009, 10:18 PM)
Fortuna favet fatuis.
All of them?
All the time?
All of them?
All the time?
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 13 2009, 12:25 AM)
HE used the term "force" after and later in life.
You still don't understand probability and why those "similar experiences" mean exactly squat as far as evidence of God. You are still arguing from a position of ignorance.
Apparently so are you since you haven't been able to explain anything at all about it.QUOTE (buttershug+)
And if God exists and has helped lots of people then he has also hurt as many and arbitrarily so.
You could have no clue about that at all. In fact you are in the group of the most clueless people on Earth about things like that.
You could have no clue about that at all. In fact you are in the group of the most clueless people on Earth about things like that.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You say God would not be restricted to one shape or gender. Are you saying he's omnipotent?
I mean: No
that doesn't have anything at all to do with it.
Apparently so are you since you haven't been able to explain anything at all about it.
I mean: No
that doesn't have anything at all to do with it. QUOTE (buttershug+)
And the poster probably wasn't talking about form or gender, I think he was talking concept.
Post whatever quote you think you're referring to and let's check it out.
Post whatever quote you think you're referring to and let's check it out.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 16 2009, 09:47 PM)
Not everyone has to get nailed to a cross afaik. My understanding is that you just have to have appreciation for God and ask him to be your Lord. I don't believe he's going to send all the Hindus, Muslims, Jews etc to Hell for not appreciating what Jesus did and went through, but I appreciate it none the less for their lack of.
In my mind, no omnipresent god needs their ego stroked, as they ARE the ego. that god would need absolutely nothing, other than for its creations to exist, as they are a part of god, yes? So why the need for all the suffering and torment? That is a man made scenario. which takes us back to the fact that you can't prove any god exists, other than some flimsy thing called faith.
I have faith that the universe is far stranger than anything we can imagine. However, the idea that there is some bearded, white, noble, vicious god that runs the universe with an iron fist, who relents once in awhile, is positively ludicrous.
MM
In my mind, no omnipresent god needs their ego stroked, as they ARE the ego. that god would need absolutely nothing, other than for its creations to exist, as they are a part of god, yes? So why the need for all the suffering and torment? That is a man made scenario. which takes us back to the fact that you can't prove any god exists, other than some flimsy thing called faith.
I have faith that the universe is far stranger than anything we can imagine. However, the idea that there is some bearded, white, noble, vicious god that runs the universe with an iron fist, who relents once in awhile, is positively ludicrous.
MM
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 16 2009, 09:57 PM)
Apparently so are you since you haven't been able to explain anything at all about it.QUOTE (buttershug+)
And if God exists and has helped lots of people then he has also hurt as many and arbitrarily so.
You could have no clue about that at all. In fact you are in the group of the most clueless people on Earth about things like that.
You could have no clue about that at all. In fact you are in the group of the most clueless people on Earth about things like that.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You say God would not be restricted to one shape or gender. Are you saying he's omnipotent?
I mean: No that doesn't have anything at all to do with it.
I mean: No
that doesn't have anything at all to do with it. QUOTE (buttershug+)
And the poster probably wasn't talking about form or gender, I think he was talking concept.
Post whatever quote you think you're referring to and let's check it out.
You just won't listen.
It is highly probably to the extent of being unavoidable that strange unlikely things will happen. Basically someone is going to win the lottery and will think something improbable happened.
I have a second cousin whose whole family was killed separately, two by bizzare car accidents. How do you say God saved you but God didn't killed them?
Bad things happen to good people. And good things don't happen anymore than someone who understands would expect.
Unless you mean the belief in God has done people good. That has provided comfort for some people. And given courage to others. But also lead others to go on Crusades.
So do you mean belief in God or God interfering in people's lives.
If you mean interfering in people's lives, then you have to discern his interference from background probability. Which you won't even make an effort to understand.
You probably don't even understand why "signal to noise ratio" is relevent here.
And I'll let that other poster explain what he meant. I have to find his post to remember who it was that asked.
Post whatever quote you think you're referring to and let's check it out.
You just won't listen.
It is highly probably to the extent of being unavoidable that strange unlikely things will happen. Basically someone is going to win the lottery and will think something improbable happened.
I have a second cousin whose whole family was killed separately, two by bizzare car accidents. How do you say God saved you but God didn't killed them?
Bad things happen to good people. And good things don't happen anymore than someone who understands would expect.
Unless you mean the belief in God has done people good. That has provided comfort for some people. And given courage to others. But also lead others to go on Crusades.
So do you mean belief in God or God interfering in people's lives.
If you mean interfering in people's lives, then you have to discern his interference from background probability. Which you won't even make an effort to understand.
You probably don't even understand why "signal to noise ratio" is relevent here.
And I'll let that other poster explain what he meant. I have to find his post to remember who it was that asked.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 16 2009, 10:20 PM)
You just won't listen.
In contrast to that: I keep trying to get you to try to explain your claims, but you can't do it.
. . .
In contrast to that: I keep trying to get you to try to explain your claims, but you can't do it.
. . .
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Bad things happen to good people. And good things don't happen anymore than someone who understands would expect.
What do you think your forumla is for calculating bad things happening to good people? What do you think your formula is for calculating how often to expect good things to happen? If you can't provide them then we see once again that you have no idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
What do you think your forumla is for calculating bad things happening to good people? What do you think your formula is for calculating how often to expect good things to happen? If you can't provide them then we see once again that you have no idea what you think you're trying to talk about.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Unless you mean the belief in God has done people good. That has provided comfort for some people. And given courage to others. But also lead others to go on Crusades.
So do you mean belief in God or God interfering in people's lives.
If you mean interfering in people's lives, then you have to discern his interference from background probability. Which you won't even make an effort to understand.
Try explaining what you think you're talking about.
So do you mean belief in God or God interfering in people's lives.
If you mean interfering in people's lives, then you have to discern his interference from background probability. Which you won't even make an effort to understand.
Try explaining what you think you're talking about.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You probably don't even understand why "signal to noise ratio" is relevent here.
Try explaining why you think it is, and how you think a person could distinguish between the two.
Try explaining why you think it is, and how you think a person could distinguish between the two.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And I'll let that other poster explain what he meant. I have to find his post to remember who it was that asked.
You consistently can't do a dam* thing I've noticed.
You consistently can't do a dam* thing I've noticed.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Nov 16 2009, 09:59 PM)
In my mind, no omnipresent god needs their ego stroked, as they ARE the ego. that god would need absolutely nothing, other than for its creations to exist, as they are a part of god, yes?
Not necessarily. And you could have no idea what he might get out of what people do.
Not necessarily. And you could have no idea what he might get out of what people do.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
So why the need for all the suffering and torment? That is a man made scenario.
No. Humans are responsible for a lot of suffering, but they certainly aren't responsible for all of it. As to how much of it God is or is not responsible for, we have no idea.
No. Humans are responsible for a lot of suffering, but they certainly aren't responsible for all of it. As to how much of it God is or is not responsible for, we have no idea.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
which takes us back to the fact that you can't prove any god exists, other than some flimsy thing called faith.
I have faith that the universe is far stranger than anything we can imagine. However, the idea that there is some bearded, white,
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
I have faith that the universe is far stranger than anything we can imagine. However, the idea that there is some bearded, white,
14. If gods exist it seems unlikely that they would be restricted to any particular form or gender.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
noble, vicious god that runs the universe with an iron fist, who relents once in awhile, is positively ludicrous.
You can imagine it, yet claim to "have faith that the universe is far stranger than anything we can imagine." How do you think you disagree with yourself about all that do you have any idea? How can you believe it's stranger than we can imagine, while at the same time think it's impossible for something you can imagine to exist? Do you think any beings anywhere have influence on certainly regions of space, like maybe some star systems? Maybe? But not on entire galaxies, right? Much less clusters of galaxies...? And you base this on what?
You can imagine it, yet claim to "have faith that the universe is far stranger than anything we can imagine." How do you think you disagree with yourself about all that
do you have any idea? How can you believe it's stranger than we can imagine, while at the same time think it's impossible for something you can imagine to exist? Do you think any beings anywhere have influence on certainly regions of space, like maybe some star systems? Maybe? But not on entire galaxies, right? Much less clusters of galaxies...? And you base this on what?
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 19 2009, 04:05 PM)
In contrast to that: I keep trying to get you to try to explain your claims, but you can't do it.
. . .
Try explaining why you think it is, and how you think a person could distinguish between the two.
. . .
Try explaining why you think it is, and how you think a person could distinguish between the two.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And I'll let that other poster explain what he meant. I have to find his post to remember who it was that asked.
You consistently can't do a dam* thing I've noticed.
Everyone else understands.
When one talks about "unlikely" they talk about probability.
You have no clue about probability.
You make no effort to learn anything at all about probability then blame me for your lack of understanding.
You ask me for formulas? You were the one making claims.
You made the claim that you think God does a lot of good for people.
What do you base that on?
Humans are responsible for more good than bad.
Hospitals
Charities
more food because of technology
etc.
No people were responsible for the deaths of my relatives.
Did God do that?
Everyone else understands.
When one talks about "unlikely" they talk about probability.
You have no clue about probability.
You make no effort to learn anything at all about probability then blame me for your lack of understanding.
You ask me for formulas? You were the one making claims.
You pretended to know what you were talking about so I gave you more than plenty of opportunities to try to create the impression that you have a clue. Or not. You've shown that you have none, so I'll let Dr. Math help you:
_________________________________________________________
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56706.html
Date: 03/21/2002 at 23:15:56
From: Doctor Twe
Subject: Re: Odds in favor
Hi Brett - thanks for writing to Dr. Math.
Let me clarify the difference between probability and odds. The
probability of an event is defined as:
(Chances for)
P(x) = ---------------
(Total chances)
So, for example, the probability of drawing an ace in a single deck of
52 cards is 4/52 = 1/13 (or about 0.077 = 7.7%).
Odds, on the other hand, are given as:
(Chances for) : (Chances against)
Incidentally, odds of 1:1 would be read as "one TO one", not "one OUT
OF one." (The words "out of" seem to imply total chances, which is
probability, not odds.)
Since (Total chances) = (Chances for) + (Chances against), we can
calculate (Chances against) = (Total chances) - (Chances for). The
odds of drawing an ace in a deck of cards is 4:(52-4) = 4:48 = 1:12.
Notice the difference in the second value; probability uses (Total
chances), but odds use (Chances against). This is why the probability
(if considered as a ratio) and the odds are different.
I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, write back!
- Doctor TWE, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.com/dr.math/
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
So finally we at least have something, even though I did have to provide it for you at the risk of being killfiled again for presenting a quote. I don't know if the URL in his sig works btw, so I included the one I got it from above the text.
Well, let's try it out now that we have a formula to work with:
p = cf/tc
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth.
Wow, that was pretty easy. Let's take one of the examples I was talking about. One thing that happened, happened maybe 1/500 of the time if that. The other event that happened at the same time which could have killed me is about the same. So what is the probability of two 1/500 of the time events happening at the same time ?
You consistently can't do a dam* thing I've noticed. Everyone else understands.
When one talks about "unlikely" they talk about probability.
You have no clue about probability.
You make no effort to learn anything at all about probability then blame me for your lack of understanding.
You ask me for formulas? You were the one making claims.
You made the claim that you think God does a lot of good for people.
What do you base that on?
Humans are responsible for more good than bad.
Hospitals
Charities
more food because of technology
etc.
No people were responsible for the deaths of my relatives.
Did God do that?
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 19 2009, 05:38 PM)
Everyone else understands.When one talks about "unlikely" they talk about probability.
You have no clue about probability.
You make no effort to learn anything at all about probability then blame me for your lack of understanding.
You ask me for formulas? You were the one making claims.
You pretended to know what you were talking about so I gave you more than plenty of opportunities to try to create the impression that you have a clue. Or not. You've shown that you have none, so I'll let Dr. Math help you:
_________________________________________________________
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56706.html
Date: 03/21/2002 at 23:15:56
From: Doctor Twe
Subject: Re: Odds in favor
Hi Brett - thanks for writing to Dr. Math.
Let me clarify the difference between probability and odds. The
probability of an event is defined as:
(Chances for)
P(x) = ---------------
(Total chances)
So, for example, the probability of drawing an ace in a single deck of
52 cards is 4/52 = 1/13 (or about 0.077 = 7.7%).
Odds, on the other hand, are given as:
(Chances for) : (Chances against)
Incidentally, odds of 1:1 would be read as "one TO one", not "one OUT
OF one." (The words "out of" seem to imply total chances, which is
probability, not odds.)
Since (Total chances) = (Chances for) + (Chances against), we can
calculate (Chances against) = (Total chances) - (Chances for). The
odds of drawing an ace in a deck of cards is 4:(52-4) = 4:48 = 1:12.
Notice the difference in the second value; probability uses (Total
chances), but odds use (Chances against). This is why the probability
(if considered as a ratio) and the odds are different.
I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, write back!
- Doctor TWE, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.com/dr.math/
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
So finally we at least have something, even though I did have to provide it for you at the risk of being killfiled again for presenting a quote. I don't know if the URL in his sig works btw, so I included the one I got it from above the text.
Well, let's try it out now that we have a formula to work with:
p = cf/tc
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth.
Wow, that was pretty easy. Let's take one of the examples I was talking about. One thing that happened, happened maybe 1/500 of the time if that. The other event that happened at the same time which could have killed me is about the same. So what is the probability of two 1/500 of the time events happening at the same time ?QUOTE (buttershug+)
You made the claim that you think God does a lot of good for people.
What do you base that on?
Humans are responsible for more good than bad.
Hospitals
Charities
more food because of technology
etc.
Many hospitals and all charities I've heard of have something to do with the concept of God. In contrast to that I've never heard of anything good being based on atheism, but if you're aware of some then let's match them up with similar God related things and see which there are really more of.
So finally we at least have something, even though I did have to provide it for you at the risk of being killfiled again for presenting a quote. I don't know if the URL in his sig works btw, so I included the one I got it from above the text.
Well, let's try it out now that we have a formula to work with:
p = cf/tc
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth. Wow, that was pretty easy. Let's take one of the examples I was talking about. One thing that happened, happened maybe 1/500 of the time if that. The other event that happened at the same time which could have killed me is about the same. So what is the probability of two 1/500 of the time events happening at the same time ?
If God exists he may not be directly responsible for the fact that things die, but it does seem most likely that he would be responsible for any sort of afterlife. Do you think that should go on the attempts to think realistically list?
Maybe you will be killified again for quoting something you don't understand.
You forget a lot of us have studied it and understand it.
So while it's all fuzzy wuzzy wishy washy stuff to you, it actually means something to us.
And you still don't understand why you have to start with randomly selected samples and why this planet does not qualify for that.
There is zero valid verifiable evidence for an afterlife. So saying God is responsible for it is saying nothing.
What do you base that on?
Humans are responsible for more good than bad.
Hospitals
Charities
more food because of technology
etc.
Many hospitals and all charities I've heard of have something to do with the concept of God. In contrast to that I've never heard of anything good being based on atheism, but if you're aware of some then let's match them up with similar God related things and see which there are really more of.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
No people were responsible for the deaths of my relatives.
Did God do that?
If God exists he may not be directly responsible for the fact that things die, but it does seem most likely that he would be responsible for any sort of afterlife. Do you think that should go on the attempts to think realistically list?
Did God do that?
If God exists he may not be directly responsible for the fact that things die, but it does seem most likely that he would be responsible for any sort of afterlife. Do you think that should go on the attempts to think realistically list?
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 22 2009, 03:02 PM)
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth. Wow, that was pretty easy. Let's take one of the examples I was talking about. One thing that happened, happened maybe 1/500 of the time if that. The other event that happened at the same time which could have killed me is about the same. So what is the probability of two 1/500 of the time events happening at the same time ?
No, you idiot, that means that the probability of a planet within this galaxy containing life is greater than or equal to 1/500 billion.
So your alien god can now magically grant afterlives? You don't even know the meaning of the word "realistic" if you think that life after death is realistic.
Wow, that was pretty easy. Let's take one of the examples I was talking about. One thing that happened, happened maybe 1/500 of the time if that. The other event that happened at the same time which could have killed me is about the same. So what is the probability of two 1/500 of the time events happening at the same time ? No, you idiot, that means that the probability of a planet within this galaxy containing life is greater than or equal to 1/500 billion.
QUOTE
If God exists he may not be directly responsible for the fact that things die, but it does seem most likely that he would be responsible for any sort of afterlife. Do you think that should go on the attempts to think realistically list?
So your alien god can now magically grant afterlives? You don't even know the meaning of the word "realistic" if you think that life after death is realistic.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 22 2009, 07:02 PM)
Many hospitals and all charities I've heard of have something to do with the concept of God. In contrast to that I've never heard of anything good being based on atheism, but if you're aware of some then let's match them up with similar God related things and see which there are really more of.
concept of God is not God.
So you can't say that God did the good, when you mean that belief in God is the reason the good was done.
And more of your ignorance. You have never heard of humanism.
concept of God is not God.
So you can't say that God did the good, when you mean that belief in God is the reason the good was done.
And more of your ignorance. You have never heard of humanism.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 22 2009, 07:02 PM)
So finally we at least have something, even though I did have to provide it for you at the risk of being killfiled again for presenting a quote. I don't know if the URL in his sig works btw, so I included the one I got it from above the text.
Well, let's try it out now that we have a formula to work with:
p = cf/tc
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth.
Wow, that was pretty easy. Let's take one of the examples I was talking about. One thing that happened, happened maybe 1/500 of the time if that. The other event that happened at the same time which could have killed me is about the same. So what is the probability of two 1/500 of the time events happening at the same time ?If God exists he may not be directly responsible for the fact that things die, but it does seem most likely that he would be responsible for any sort of afterlife. Do you think that should go on the attempts to think realistically list?
Maybe you will be killified again for quoting something you don't understand.
You forget a lot of us have studied it and understand it.
So while it's all fuzzy wuzzy wishy washy stuff to you, it actually means something to us.
And you still don't understand why you have to start with randomly selected samples and why this planet does not qualify for that.
There is zero valid verifiable evidence for an afterlife. So saying God is responsible for it is saying nothing.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 22 2009, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Many hospitals and all charities I've heard of have something to do with the concept of God. In contrast to that I've never heard of anything good being based on atheism, but if you're aware of some then let's match them up with similar God related things and see which there are really more of.
concept of God is not God.
So you can't say that God did the good, when you mean that belief in God is the reason the good was done.
So between both of us we can't think of anything good that was founded on atheism, yet there are countless things we can consider good that were founded on belief in God. There were also bad things. Were there more good, or bad? Was it bad that Europeans came to America and took the land from the Indians in the name of God and king? If so, for whom was it bad? In an overall context "for the greater good" is it better or worse that instead of some tribes that require large tracts of land to support a small number of people wearing skins and living in homes made of branches and skins etc as they had done for probably hundreds of thousands of years, now many more people are able to live in the same size areas who wear better clothing, live in better homes, and have better TVs and stereos, etc? Hmm, what a puzzle... But here's a clue for us: IF!!! it really was better to live as they had done, there would be large numbers of them who moved to remote areas in Alaska and Canada so they could live in the old ways, and there would be none of them living on reservations bitching about what the white man took away from them. In contrast to what it would be like if that really was better we NEVER hear of tribes of them moving somewhere so they can live in the old ways. And I feel confident there still are some of them living on reservations enjoying the benefits of what they're bitching about, instead of grabbing some weapons made of bone and moving back into the wilderness to try to kill enough bison or caribue or whatever to make a home and get a good enough supply of meat and fish to carry them through their first winter...
So you can't say that God did the good, when you mean that belief in God is the reason the good was done.
So between both of us we can't think of anything good that was founded on atheism, yet there are countless things we can consider good that were founded on belief in God. There were also bad things. Were there more good, or bad? Was it bad that Europeans came to America and took the land from the Indians in the name of God and king? If so, for whom was it bad? In an overall context "for the greater good" is it better or worse that instead of some tribes that require large tracts of land to support a small number of people wearing skins and living in homes made of branches and skins etc as they had done for probably hundreds of thousands of years, now many more people are able to live in the same size areas who wear better clothing, live in better homes, and have better TVs and stereos, etc? Hmm, what a puzzle... But here's a clue for us: IF!!! it really was better to live as they had done, there would be large numbers of them who moved to remote areas in Alaska and Canada so they could live in the old ways, and there would be none of them living on reservations bitching about what the white man took away from them. In contrast to what it would be like if that really was better we NEVER hear of tribes of them moving somewhere so they can live in the old ways. And I feel confident there still are some of them living on reservations enjoying the benefits of what they're bitching about, instead of grabbing some weapons made of bone and moving back into the wilderness to try to kill enough bison or caribue or whatever to make a home and get a good enough supply of meat and fish to carry them through their first winter...QUOTE (buttershug+)
And more of your ignorance. You have never heard of humanism.
That's quite an ASSumption to make and even more of an ASSclaim to make about someone. Since you brought it up though, what do you think you think that concept has to support faith in the nonexistence of God, or whatever you think the idea might support?
That's quite an ASSumption to make and even more of an ASSclaim to make about someone. Since you brought it up though, what do you think you think that concept has to support faith in the nonexistence of God, or whatever you think the idea might support?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 22 2009, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
p = cf/tc
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth. Wow, that was pretty easy.
Let's do it for this being the only planet with intelligent life. Chances for: 1. Total chances: lets say 500 billion since we don't know how much more it is than that. So the probability of this being the only planet with intelligent life is 1/500 billionth.
Wow, that was pretty easy. No, you idiot, that means that the probability of a planet within this galaxy containing life is greater than or equal to 1/500 billion.
That's not in the equation. You would have to make up a different one to try to figure that, but the probability of Earth being the only planet containing life remains 1/500 billion or more regardless. How long do you think it has been that way? Millions of years? Billions? How to even estimate it?
That's not in the equation. You would have to make up a different one to try to figure that, but the probability of Earth being the only planet containing life remains 1/500 billion or more regardless.
How long do you think it has been that way? Millions of years? Billions? How to even estimate it?QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
So your alien god can now magically grant afterlives? You don't even know the meaning of the word "realistic" if you think that life after death is realistic.
I don't think it would be "magic" as you apparently like to think, but I certainly believe it's possible. The body obviously dies, but whether our thoughts and selves can exist is less certain. You can't think of any ways it could be done, but if our experiences in life could be kept as a program or whatever then we could maintain a sense of individuality and self, and self history. You're lost I know so there's no point going on, but it is realistic. Here's a clue for you: when people come up with concepts about clones being grown so a person can get a "new body" or whatever it's the same sort of idea. Too much for you but obviously not for everyone.
I don't think it would be "magic" as you apparently like to think, but I certainly believe it's possible. The body obviously dies, but whether our thoughts and selves can exist is less certain. You can't think of any ways it could be done, but if our experiences in life could be kept as a program or whatever then we could maintain a sense of individuality and self, and self history. You're lost I know so there's no point going on, but it is realistic. Here's a clue for you: when people come up with concepts about clones being grown so a person can get a "new body" or whatever it's the same sort of idea. Too much for you
but obviously not for everyone.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 22 2009, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If God exists he may not be directly responsible for the fact that things die, but it does seem most likely that he would be responsible for any sort of afterlife. Do you think that should go on the attempts to think realistically list?
Maybe you will be killified again for quoting something you don't understand.
You forget a lot of us have studied it and understand it.
So while it's all fuzzy wuzzy wishy washy stuff to you, it actually means something to us.
So far there's not the slightest bit of evidence of that being the case. I've tried to get people to provide evidence that it is the case, but there has been none at all. No one was able to apply the birthday trick, and no one except myself has applied any probability calculations. In fact I had to present the information I've been challenging other people to present myself. So if it turns out I am wrong about something it will more likely be because I figure it out for myself and then explain it to other people than that someone else will explain how I'm wrong to me. But so far it doesn't look like I'm wrong about any of it anyway.
You forget a lot of us have studied it and understand it.
So while it's all fuzzy wuzzy wishy washy stuff to you, it actually means something to us.
So far there's not the slightest bit of evidence of that being the case. I've tried to get people to provide evidence that it is the case, but there has been none at all. No one was able to apply the birthday trick, and no one except myself has applied any probability calculations. In fact I had to present the information I've been challenging other people to present myself. So if it turns out I am wrong about something it will more likely be because I figure it out for myself and then explain it to other people than that someone else will explain how I'm wrong to me. But so far it doesn't look like I'm wrong about any of it anyway.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And you still don't understand why you have to start with randomly selected samples and why this planet does not qualify for that.
For now it's good enough since it's all we've got. Were you unaware of that?
For now it's good enough since it's all we've got. Were you unaware of that?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
There is zero valid verifiable evidence for an afterlife. So saying God is responsible for it is saying nothing.
Do you think there are beings in the universe who have learned to survive beyond the lifetime of their bodies...or at least to feel that they have? I believe it's more likely than not that there are. You might consider it somewhat likely that humans are the most advanced beings in the universe. I don't consider that realistic at all, to the point of being primitive and cavemanish.
Do you think there are beings in the universe who have learned to survive beyond the lifetime of their bodies...or at least to feel that they have? I believe it's more likely than not that there are. You might consider it somewhat likely that humans are the most advanced beings in the universe. I don't consider that realistic at all, to the point of being primitive and cavemanish.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 24 2009, 08:56 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And you still don't understand why you have to start with randomly selected samples and why this planet does not qualify for that.
For now it's good enough since it's all we've got. Were you unaware of that?
I would hate to eat at your place if you were out of flour and only had plaster of paris.
This being the only planet we know of with life does not instantly qualify it to use the way you want to. What it means is that we can't do the calculation you want to do.
And you are still arguing based on ignorance.
For now it's good enough since it's all we've got. Were you unaware of that?
I would hate to eat at your place if you were out of flour and only had plaster of paris.
This being the only planet we know of with life does not instantly qualify it to use the way you want to. What it means is that we can't do the calculation you want to do.
And you are still arguing based on ignorance.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 25 2009, 09:53 AM)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
So your alien god can now magically grant afterlives? You don't even know the meaning of the word "realistic" if you think that life after death is realistic.
I don't think it would be "magic" as you apparently like to think, but I certainly believe it's possible. The body obviously dies, but whether our thoughts and selves can exist is less certain. You can't think of any ways it could be done, but if our experiences in life could be kept as a program or whatever then we could maintain a sense of individuality and self, and self history. You're lost I know so there's no point going on, but it is realistic. Here's a clue for you: when people come up with concepts about clones being grown so a person can get a "new body" or whatever it's the same sort of idea. Too much for you but obviously not for everyone.
Hi all
There is an interesting question here.
"How WOULD afterlife be stored "
I have huge problems with how christianity throws about eternity 'ad hoc'. To be fair science suffers from as similar "belief"...It was impossible to get most to not believe in the universe as "Infinite". And I mean that most could not be persuaded that the universe did not go on for ever and ever.
But back to Christianity's claim that There exists a process of afterlife.
The subject is generally dangled enticingly as a reward/punishment system,but the system does not begin and end in eternity(or the belief therein.). The reward/punishment is a fundamental base from which 'much' of our historical social structure was formed.The belief that this system works is in the fact that it is still the current methodology today. Although we my have abandoned many long held ideals in various junctures, justice is a central theme to a healthy society.
'God's justice' is deemed to be higher than man's justice.(If it were otherwise,God is brought to the level of human kind.)Therefore the harbingers of doom and destruction are as set in concrete as 'forever and ever amen'. It is inconceivable that so many verses are devoted to this subject,in reasonably specific terms and yet we might ignore it or relegate it to a mistaken thought process by the writers. Consequence is a central theme in the texts .However I don't hold that 'physical damnation' would be a likely scenario as an afterlife.
This seems much too much like a human concept of habitation for me ,and I could never follow the logic as it is taught. I have rad a number of posts that I agree with , since they raise similar objections to my own on the subject.
"Why would a caring God do this?" "how could a loving God allow this to happen". I fully agree with these arguments,regardless of how I may seem to argue..For myself, I have become quite comfortable with the concept of 'God as part of a process', which of course,many of you have read all or part of.
As such , I don't regard 'God' as being good or bad,just or unjust.Just the result of the ultimate process......Since we are part of the process,some measure of understanding ,even rebellion might be positive.Very few processes in the universe are exacting and are constantly adjusted via a recycling process.
"Those of you who have none,even those I will take from you and give to those who have ten". Once again this seems harsh punishment, since we prefer to give second ,third and forth chances in life. To us this appears unjust"to be damned forever".
Only a process appears to have enough impartiality to me to have no other options but to carry out such a sentence. But I am not a believer in "eternal damnation" as proposed in the churches. I prefer that the process by which you were created is fixed and immutable. That there are portions of the cycles which have greater longevity than others within the framework. I also don't see the process beginning and ending with your particular birth. Much more than this, the line that spawned you is fixed and set before your birth. So too your line in the future is continued after you have gone.
One line of particular interest to me is "The sins of the father shall be visited on the son to the tenth generation"...This could not be understood very clearly before DNA,so is has always been seen as "a punishment statement". Every interpretation seems to take stern statements and use them as sticks to beat the congregation when further investigation (easier these days) might lead to other conclusions.
This statement appears to suit that "not following the rule of law will lead to problems within your line".Just to be clear.I don't take notice of every statement within the confines of the conversation it is depicted in. Often they seem at odds with the current line of conversation .Where this happens, I often look for deeper meanings. That is the case with this one.
Because it is at odds with "a loving God". I am inclined to look more closely as to what it may be referring to. I am reasonably happy that not following some specific laws would be detrimental to one;s future linage,so can allow that this line has a base in the evolutionary process akin to 'diversity in the gene pool'. In nature, This is what we actually see ,that diversity is a good thing and inbreeding , not so good.
What is 'eternal damnation' or heavenly reward?. It's as simple as being a key portion of the entire process. Not as or within the human guise. But as the process that ,through longevity, supported it as correct within the confines of the universal picture.Both sides.(good and evil) belong there or would not be perceived to exist. But good will have it's reward by being the glue which holds it all together,while evil is replaced by a good process.Just as unstable processes are replaced by more stable processes.
The beginning and the end are the same.It's only the middle ground which we are seeing...
Cheers
Iseason
I don't think it would be "magic" as you apparently like to think, but I certainly believe it's possible. The body obviously dies, but whether our thoughts and selves can exist is less certain. You can't think of any ways it could be done, but if our experiences in life could be kept as a program or whatever then we could maintain a sense of individuality and self, and self history. You're lost I know so there's no point going on, but it is realistic. Here's a clue for you: when people come up with concepts about clones being grown so a person can get a "new body" or whatever it's the same sort of idea. Too much for you
but obviously not for everyone. Hi all
There is an interesting question here.
"How WOULD afterlife be stored "
I have huge problems with how christianity throws about eternity 'ad hoc'. To be fair science suffers from as similar "belief"...It was impossible to get most to not believe in the universe as "Infinite". And I mean that most could not be persuaded that the universe did not go on for ever and ever.
But back to Christianity's claim that There exists a process of afterlife.
The subject is generally dangled enticingly as a reward/punishment system,but the system does not begin and end in eternity(or the belief therein.). The reward/punishment is a fundamental base from which 'much' of our historical social structure was formed.The belief that this system works is in the fact that it is still the current methodology today. Although we my have abandoned many long held ideals in various junctures, justice is a central theme to a healthy society.
'God's justice' is deemed to be higher than man's justice.(If it were otherwise,God is brought to the level of human kind.)Therefore the harbingers of doom and destruction are as set in concrete as 'forever and ever amen'. It is inconceivable that so many verses are devoted to this subject,in reasonably specific terms and yet we might ignore it or relegate it to a mistaken thought process by the writers. Consequence is a central theme in the texts .However I don't hold that 'physical damnation' would be a likely scenario as an afterlife.
This seems much too much like a human concept of habitation for me ,and I could never follow the logic as it is taught. I have rad a number of posts that I agree with , since they raise similar objections to my own on the subject.
"Why would a caring God do this?" "how could a loving God allow this to happen". I fully agree with these arguments,regardless of how I may seem to argue..For myself, I have become quite comfortable with the concept of 'God as part of a process', which of course,many of you have read all or part of.
As such , I don't regard 'God' as being good or bad,just or unjust.Just the result of the ultimate process......Since we are part of the process,some measure of understanding ,even rebellion might be positive.Very few processes in the universe are exacting and are constantly adjusted via a recycling process.
"Those of you who have none,even those I will take from you and give to those who have ten". Once again this seems harsh punishment, since we prefer to give second ,third and forth chances in life. To us this appears unjust"to be damned forever".
Only a process appears to have enough impartiality to me to have no other options but to carry out such a sentence. But I am not a believer in "eternal damnation" as proposed in the churches. I prefer that the process by which you were created is fixed and immutable. That there are portions of the cycles which have greater longevity than others within the framework. I also don't see the process beginning and ending with your particular birth. Much more than this, the line that spawned you is fixed and set before your birth. So too your line in the future is continued after you have gone.
One line of particular interest to me is "The sins of the father shall be visited on the son to the tenth generation"...This could not be understood very clearly before DNA,so is has always been seen as "a punishment statement". Every interpretation seems to take stern statements and use them as sticks to beat the congregation when further investigation (easier these days) might lead to other conclusions.
This statement appears to suit that "not following the rule of law will lead to problems within your line".Just to be clear.I don't take notice of every statement within the confines of the conversation it is depicted in. Often they seem at odds with the current line of conversation .Where this happens, I often look for deeper meanings. That is the case with this one.
Because it is at odds with "a loving God". I am inclined to look more closely as to what it may be referring to. I am reasonably happy that not following some specific laws would be detrimental to one;s future linage,so can allow that this line has a base in the evolutionary process akin to 'diversity in the gene pool'. In nature, This is what we actually see ,that diversity is a good thing and inbreeding , not so good.
What is 'eternal damnation' or heavenly reward?. It's as simple as being a key portion of the entire process. Not as or within the human guise. But as the process that ,through longevity, supported it as correct within the confines of the universal picture.Both sides.(good and evil) belong there or would not be perceived to exist. But good will have it's reward by being the glue which holds it all together,while evil is replaced by a good process.Just as unstable processes are replaced by more stable processes.
The beginning and the end are the same.It's only the middle ground which we are seeing...
Cheers
Iseason
Life after death
Wishful thinking?
http://chaospet.com/2008/07/07/91-quantum-immortality/
Or grim reality?
Wishful thinking?
http://chaospet.com/2008/07/07/91-quantum-immortality/
Or grim reality?
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 24 2009, 08:51 PM)
concept of God is not God.
So you can't say that God did the good, when you mean that belief in God is the reason the good was done.[/QUOTE]
So between both of us we can't think of anything good that was founded on atheism, yet there are countless things we can consider good that were founded on belief in God. There were also bad things. Were there more good, or bad?
So you can't say that God did the good, when you mean that belief in God is the reason the good was done.[/QUOTE]
So between both of us we can't think of anything good that was founded on atheism, yet there are countless things we can consider good that were founded on belief in God. There were also bad things. Were there more good, or bad? QUOTE (buttershug+)
And more of your ignorance. You have never heard of humanism.
That's quite an ASSumption to make and even more of an ASSclaim to make about someone. Since you brought it up though, what do you think you think that concept has to support faith in the nonexistence of God, or whatever you think the idea might support?
That all makes no difference in determining if God exists or not.
That is the discussion.
Are you in the Light in the Tunnel camp believing that if someone believes something that makes it true?
And you say we can't think of anything good started by atheism then you accuse me of assuming that you have never heard of Humanism.
If you had heard of humanism why did you not list as something good started by atheism?
That's quite an ASSumption to make and even more of an ASSclaim to make about someone. Since you brought it up though, what do you think you think that concept has to support faith in the nonexistence of God, or whatever you think the idea might support?
That all makes no difference in determining if God exists or not.
That is the discussion.
Are you in the Light in the Tunnel camp believing that if someone believes something that makes it true?
And you say we can't think of anything good started by atheism then you accuse me of assuming that you have never heard of Humanism.
If you had heard of humanism why did you not list as something good started by atheism?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I don't think it would be "magic" as you apparently like to think, but I certainly believe it's possible.
It seems you have difficulty differentiating between what is possible and what is real.
It seems you have difficulty differentiating between what is possible and what is real.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 25 2009, 12:00 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
For now it's good enough since it's all we've got. Were you unaware of that?
I would hate to eat at your place if you were out of flour and only had plaster of paris.
This being the only planet we know of with life does not instantly qualify it to use the way you want to. What it means is that we can't do the calculation you want to do.
Some of us are able to think about it more than others of you apparently.
I would hate to eat at your place if you were out of flour and only had plaster of paris.
This being the only planet we know of with life does not instantly qualify it to use the way you want to. What it means is that we can't do the calculation you want to do.
Some of us are able to think about it more than others of you apparently.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And you are still arguing based on ignorance.
We all are.
We all are.
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 25 2009, 08:46 AM)
I don't hold that 'physical damnation' would be a likely scenario as an afterlife.
It would be an inconsiderate and cruel God indeed to send people to Hell for some of the things we're told he will, and maybe for anything at all. What if only the beast and his crew, who know what's going on and are deliberately trying to get millions of humans sent to damnation, are going to get tossed in the fire? Would it be fair to send them?
That all makes no difference in determining if God exists or not.
That is the discussion.
Are you in the Light in the Tunnel camp believing that if someone believes something that makes it true?
No, and I find it hard to believe that anyone is. If you told me someone was, I would have to hear it from them before I would believe you. I will say though that in another forum someone was accusing someone else of believing the Earth is hollow and has alien beings living in and flying in and out of it. I thought he was lying--knowing him well to be a constant liar--so I asked the person and she admitted that yes, she did believe it. It was quite a surprise to me.
It would be an inconsiderate and cruel God indeed to send people to Hell for some of the things we're told he will, and maybe for anything at all. What if only the beast and his crew, who know what's going on and are deliberately trying to get millions of humans sent to damnation, are going to get tossed in the fire? Would it be fair to send them?
QUOTE (iseason+)
This seems much too much like a human concept of habitation for me ,and I could never follow the logic as it is taught. I have rad a number of posts that I agree with , since they raise similar objections to my own on the subject.
"Why would a caring God do this?" "how could a loving God allow this to happen". I fully agree with these arguments,regardless of how I may seem to argue..For myself, I have become quite comfortable with the concept of 'God as part of a process', which of course,many of you have read all or part of.
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
"Why would a caring God do this?" "how could a loving God allow this to happen". I fully agree with these arguments,regardless of how I may seem to argue..For myself, I have become quite comfortable with the concept of 'God as part of a process', which of course,many of you have read all or part of.
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 25 2009, 12:19 PM)
That all makes no difference in determining if God exists or not.
That is the discussion.
Are you in the Light in the Tunnel camp believing that if someone believes something that makes it true?
No, and I find it hard to believe that anyone is. If you told me someone was, I would have to hear it from them before I would believe you. I will say though that in another forum someone was accusing someone else of believing the Earth is hollow and has alien beings living in and flying in and out of it. I thought he was lying--knowing him well to be a constant liar--so I asked the person and she admitted that yes, she did believe it. It was quite a surprise to me.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And you say we can't think of anything good started by atheism then you accuse me of assuming that you have never heard of Humanism.
If you had heard of humanism why did you not list as something good started by atheism?
I tried to find some, but so far have not been able to find anything stating that humanism is based on or was started by atheism.
If you had heard of humanism why did you not list as something good started by atheism?
I tried to find some, but so far have not been able to find anything stating that humanism is based on or was started by atheism.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 26 2009, 10:51 PM)
It would be an inconsiderate and cruel God indeed to send people to Hell for some of the things we're told he will, and maybe for anything at all. What if only the beast and his crew, who know what's going on and are deliberately trying to get millions of humans sent to damnation, are going to get tossed in the fire? Would it be fair to send them?
Why should a being which is far more technologically/evolutionarily advanced than us be kind and considerate? Are we kind and considerate to cattle?
Why should a being which is far more technologically/evolutionarily advanced than us be kind and considerate? Are we kind and considerate to cattle?
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 25 2009, 02:32 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I don't think it would be "magic" as you apparently like to think, but I certainly believe it's possible.
It seems you have difficulty differentiating between what is possible and what is real.
Then those of you who think you don't should try to explain, so see if you can try.
It seems you have difficulty differentiating between what is possible and what is real.
Then those of you who think you don't should try to explain, so see if you can try.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 26 2009, 10:58 PM)
I tried to find some, but so far have not been able to find anything stating that humanism is based on or was started by atheism.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 26 2009, 05:28 PM)
No, and I find it hard to believe that anyone is. If you told me someone was, I would have to hear it from them before I would believe you. I will say though that in another forum someone was accusing someone else of believing the Earth is hollow and has alien beings living in and flying in and out of it. I thought he was lying--knowing him well to be a constant liar--so I asked the person and she admitted that yes, she did believe it. It was quite a surprise to me.
You never heard of that?
I had the book. I think it's one of the books I"ve given away over the years. Although it's possible it's at my parents place.
And why are you now talking about all the good or bad things done in belief of God? That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
You never heard of that?
I had the book. I think it's one of the books I"ve given away over the years. Although it's possible it's at my parents place.
And why are you now talking about all the good or bad things done in belief of God? That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 26 2009, 05:30 PM)
Why should a being which is far more technologically/evolutionarily advanced than us be kind and considerate?
Should? I guess that would be up to him if he should or not. Some of us who are human feel that consideration for other beings is a respectable thing. If the being in question felt that way too, then it would be in order to maintain his own self respect.
Should? I guess that would be up to him if he should or not. Some of us who are human feel that consideration for other beings is a respectable thing. If the being in question felt that way too, then it would be in order to maintain his own self respect.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Are we kind and considerate to cattle?
We should be, even at the time of their slaughter. Why not?
We should be, even at the time of their slaughter. Why not?
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 26 2009, 05:34 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Okay then, I guess one good thing may have come from atheism. But since there is religious humanism also it's not very clear. There are other things blurring it too, and even if there weren't it's only one thing. Let's see about Christian human aid organizations.
_________________________________________________________
Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,190,000 for Christian human aid organizations. (0.28 seconds)
Charitable Organizations & Foundations : humanitarian aid
International Aid is a leading Christian relief and development agency that ... CONSCIENCE INTERNATIONAL is a humanitarian aid organization dedicated to ...
www.zoominfo.com/...organizations.../humanitarian-aid.htm - Cached - Similar
Google Directory - Society > Philanthropy > Organizations ...
An international Christian humanitarian aid organization that provides food, housing, medical services, education and ministry to poor people and families ...
www.google.com ... Philanthropy Organizations Religious - Cached - Similar
Christian Alliance - Home
Christian Alliance For Humanitarian Aid, Inc. Charitable Organization. Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid, Inc. has been determined to be exempt from ...
www.christian-alliance.org/ - Cached - Similar
Sponsor a Child < Home | World Vision
World Vision is a Christian relief, development and advocacy ... They really need help from the government, other countries, and aid organizations like us." ..... a program in coordination with an Afghan humanitarian organization. ...
www.worldvision.org/ - Cached - Similar
Aid Organizations
Christian Aid: www.christian-aid.org.uk. FMF: Feminist Majority Foundation: www.feminist.org. GOAL: an international humanitarian aid organization based in ...
afghanistan.quaker.org/AidOrgs.htm - Cached - Similar
Organizations Providing Vietnam Humanitarian Aid
L.O.V.E. is a Christian humanitarian aid organization based in Da Nang. Our main focus is to provide relief to the local people in the following areas: ...
www.adoptvietnam.org vietnam vietnam humantarian aid - Cached - Similar
Religious Freedom, Human Rights, Children in Need, Humanitarian Aid
Christian Solidarity International is a Christian Human Rights organization. Our mission in the Sudan, Iraq and Pakistan are vital to saving lives and ...
www.csi-int.org/ - Cached - Similar
Humanitarian Aid and Relief
We perform humanitarian relief and humanitarian aid in 24 countries worldwide. ... World Concern is a nonprofit Christian humanitarian organization that has ...
humanitarian.worldconcern.org/ - Cached - Similar
Charity Navigator Rating - Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid
Founded in 1998, Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid is an ecumenical, ... A disaster relief organization with a goal for humanitarian aid, the Alliance ...
Show map of 4401 Rice Drier Rd, Pearland, TX 77581-2815
www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search...orgid... - Cached - Similar
Top Disaster Relief Organizations
Operation Blessing is an international relief and humanitarian organization ... World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization dedicated to ...
christianity.about.com/od/practicaltools/tp/disasterrelief.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
What else, other than possibly the one thing, can you find for atheism?
Okay then, I guess one good thing may have come from atheism. But since there is religious humanism also it's not very clear. There are other things blurring it too, and even if there weren't it's only one thing. Let's see about Christian human aid organizations.
_________________________________________________________
Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,190,000 for Christian human aid organizations. (0.28 seconds)
Charitable Organizations & Foundations : humanitarian aid
International Aid is a leading Christian relief and development agency that ... CONSCIENCE INTERNATIONAL is a humanitarian aid organization dedicated to ...
www.zoominfo.com/...organizations.../humanitarian-aid.htm - Cached - Similar
Google Directory - Society > Philanthropy > Organizations ...
An international Christian humanitarian aid organization that provides food, housing, medical services, education and ministry to poor people and families ...
www.google.com ... Philanthropy Organizations Religious - Cached - Similar
Christian Alliance - Home
Christian Alliance For Humanitarian Aid, Inc. Charitable Organization. Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid, Inc. has been determined to be exempt from ...
www.christian-alliance.org/ - Cached - Similar
Sponsor a Child < Home | World Vision
World Vision is a Christian relief, development and advocacy ... They really need help from the government, other countries, and aid organizations like us." ..... a program in coordination with an Afghan humanitarian organization. ...
www.worldvision.org/ - Cached - Similar
Aid Organizations
Christian Aid: www.christian-aid.org.uk. FMF: Feminist Majority Foundation: www.feminist.org. GOAL: an international humanitarian aid organization based in ...
afghanistan.quaker.org/AidOrgs.htm - Cached - Similar
Organizations Providing Vietnam Humanitarian Aid
L.O.V.E. is a Christian humanitarian aid organization based in Da Nang. Our main focus is to provide relief to the local people in the following areas: ...
www.adoptvietnam.org vietnam vietnam humantarian aid - Cached - Similar
Religious Freedom, Human Rights, Children in Need, Humanitarian Aid
Christian Solidarity International is a Christian Human Rights organization. Our mission in the Sudan, Iraq and Pakistan are vital to saving lives and ...
www.csi-int.org/ - Cached - Similar
Humanitarian Aid and Relief
We perform humanitarian relief and humanitarian aid in 24 countries worldwide. ... World Concern is a nonprofit Christian humanitarian organization that has ...
humanitarian.worldconcern.org/ - Cached - Similar
Charity Navigator Rating - Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid
Founded in 1998, Christian Alliance for Humanitarian Aid is an ecumenical, ... A disaster relief organization with a goal for humanitarian aid, the Alliance ...
Show map of 4401 Rice Drier Rd, Pearland, TX 77581-2815
www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search...orgid... - Cached - Similar
Top Disaster Relief Organizations
Operation Blessing is an international relief and humanitarian organization ... World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization dedicated to ...
christianity.about.com/od/practicaltools/tp/disasterrelief.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
What else, other than possibly the one thing, can you find for atheism?
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 26 2009, 06:05 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
in another forum someone was accusing someone else of believing the Earth is hollow and has alien beings living in and flying in and out of it. I thought he was lying--knowing him well to be a constant liar--so I asked the person and she admitted that yes, she did believe it. It was quite a surprise to me.
You never heard of that?
I had heard the idea but was surprised to learn that anyone believed it. Looking into it later I found that not only did some people believe it, but some of them were even interested and possibly paying in hopes of going on expeditions or whatever to go check it out.
I had heard the idea but was surprised to learn that anyone believed it. Looking into it later I found that not only did some people believe it, but some of them were even interested and possibly paying in hopes of going on expeditions or whatever to go check it out.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I had the book. I think it's one of the books I"ve given away over the years. Although it's possible it's at my parents place.
And why are you now talking about all the good or bad things done in belief of God? That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
We certainly have reason to believe it does if God exists, but I guess you can't think realistically enough about the situation to have any appreciation for influence that God or Satan could/would have on people.
And why are you now talking about all the good or bad things done in belief of God? That has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
We certainly have reason to believe it does if God exists, but I guess you can't think realistically enough about the situation to have any appreciation for influence that God or Satan could/would have on people.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
We should be, even at the time of their slaughter. Why not?
Slaughter is not kind and considerate.
We are not kind and considerate to cattle. Similarly, advanced aliens may not be kind and considerate towards us.
Slaughter is not kind and considerate.
We are not kind and considerate to cattle. Similarly, advanced aliens may not be kind and considerate towards us.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Let's see about Christian human aid organizations.
I accept that religious organizations have done plenty of good. They have done a lot of bad too.
I accept that religious organizations have done plenty of good. They have done a lot of bad too.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What else, other than possibly the one thing, can you find for atheism?
It is easier to collect money in god's name because people think they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Consider all organizations which are not religion based, such as the UNICEF, UNHCR, Red Cross, Amnesty International etc. Proof that you don't need God to do good.
It is easier to collect money in god's name because people think they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Consider all organizations which are not religion based, such as the UNICEF, UNHCR, Red Cross, Amnesty International etc. Proof that you don't need God to do good.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 27 2009, 06:21 AM)
It would be an inconsiderate and cruel God indeed to send people to Hell for some of the things we're told he will, and maybe for anything at all. What if only the beast and his crew, who know what's going on and are deliberately trying to get millions of humans sent to damnation, are going to get tossed in the fire? Would it be fair to send them?
QUOTE (iseason+)
This seems much too much like a human concept of habitation for me ,and I could never follow the logic as it is taught. I have rad a number of posts that I agree with , since they raise similar objections to my own on the subject.
"Why would a caring God do this?" "how could a loving God allow this to happen". I fully agree with these arguments,regardless of how I may seem to argue..For myself, I have become quite comfortable with the concept of 'God as part of a process', which of course,many of you have read all or part of.
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
Hi nopEda , all
I think in part you may be misinterpreting my position.
"What if only the beast and his crew, who know what's going on and are deliberately trying to get millions of humans sent to damnation, are going to get tossed in the fire? Would it be fair to send them?"
This phrase suggests that "a place, or state" would be separated from what we understand as the physical universe.That "at some point " a judgment will take place and sentence passed.
One way to view the text is as a completion of information. Therefore , once the book was closed,the order was not the key to understanding what it contained. This too is the way I see the universe.We have a tendency to say,"at the end of time,or at judgment". But this returns us to a human concept of how it will function.It also returns to the concept of punishment,where there is no ongoing need to punish.
If you can, Think of the universe as being finite.Time equals the measurement of what occurs within this framework.But what I don't think is right is that following a time line gives you a true picture of what occurs. If that were the case (time line)then paying for 'sin' would be after the completion of a test cycle which determines where you spent eternity and how .
I Makes sense to me that the testing was already finished before we began to experience it in human form. that ALL the parameters are in place and ."all the names are in the book of life"....This literally means that individual acts are irrelevant. that the process has worked to create something which was not present before the process started. ..Consciousness.
You or I are not important even as we view our daily lives with such diverse worries as how to lice and free choice.The choices you make will be inevitable because they will happen. You can say' maybe I will choose differently' but you can only choose once. And since the process has already been completed based on everything that occurred ,you choice was taken into account "before time was".
Even when considering free choice,we must take a broader view of the process. What are you but a collaboration of much smaller events,contained within a much larger bucket. Your impact ,if you ruled the world would not affect very much in a universal sense since the is the volume of the greater universe structure to absorb the best you can throw at it.
" Your quote"
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
Humankind has advanced as a societal group apart from all the animals,but to what end?We came,we raped the wold and in the end ,the world will blow us to hell.(tongue in cheek)...No , you are just energy in a specific alignment that makes much more sense to the bigger picture. Then why do it.....Because it adds up to a point where knowledge began in it's most use able and correct form.
We're just in there somewhere/
Cheers
Iseason
"Why would a caring God do this?" "how could a loving God allow this to happen". I fully agree with these arguments,regardless of how I may seem to argue..For myself, I have become quite comfortable with the concept of 'God as part of a process', which of course,many of you have read all or part of.
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
Hi nopEda , all
I think in part you may be misinterpreting my position.
"What if only the beast and his crew, who know what's going on and are deliberately trying to get millions of humans sent to damnation, are going to get tossed in the fire? Would it be fair to send them?"
This phrase suggests that "a place, or state" would be separated from what we understand as the physical universe.That "at some point " a judgment will take place and sentence passed.
One way to view the text is as a completion of information. Therefore , once the book was closed,the order was not the key to understanding what it contained. This too is the way I see the universe.We have a tendency to say,"at the end of time,or at judgment". But this returns us to a human concept of how it will function.It also returns to the concept of punishment,where there is no ongoing need to punish.
If you can, Think of the universe as being finite.Time equals the measurement of what occurs within this framework.But what I don't think is right is that following a time line gives you a true picture of what occurs. If that were the case (time line)then paying for 'sin' would be after the completion of a test cycle which determines where you spent eternity and how .
I Makes sense to me that the testing was already finished before we began to experience it in human form. that ALL the parameters are in place and ."all the names are in the book of life"....This literally means that individual acts are irrelevant. that the process has worked to create something which was not present before the process started. ..Consciousness.
You or I are not important even as we view our daily lives with such diverse worries as how to lice and free choice.The choices you make will be inevitable because they will happen. You can say' maybe I will choose differently' but you can only choose once. And since the process has already been completed based on everything that occurred ,you choice was taken into account "before time was".
Even when considering free choice,we must take a broader view of the process. What are you but a collaboration of much smaller events,contained within a much larger bucket. Your impact ,if you ruled the world would not affect very much in a universal sense since the is the volume of the greater universe structure to absorb the best you can throw at it.
" Your quote"
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
Humankind has advanced as a societal group apart from all the animals,but to what end?We came,we raped the wold and in the end ,the world will blow us to hell.(tongue in cheek)...No , you are just energy in a specific alignment that makes much more sense to the bigger picture. Then why do it.....Because it adds up to a point where knowledge began in it's most use able and correct form.
We're just in there somewhere/
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 27 2009, 10:27 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
We would be part of a process too. Many people act as if we're in some special position at the end of the game, but it's likely enough we haven't gotten started good yet and we're really not in much different a position than the people in the Old Testament...still just a step in the process...
Humankind has advanced as a societal group apart from all the animals,but to what end?We came,we raped the wold and in the end ,the world will blow us to hell.
How do you think it's going to do that? Do you think it will kill the animals too, or only humans?
Humankind has advanced as a societal group apart from all the animals,but to what end?We came,we raped the wold and in the end ,the world will blow us to hell.
How do you think it's going to do that? Do you think it will kill the animals too, or only humans?
QUOTE (iseason+)
(tongue in cheek)...No , you are just energy in a specific alignment that makes much more sense to the bigger picture. Then why do it.....Because it adds up to a point where knowledge began in it's most use able and correct form.
We're just in there somewhere/
Eventually the sun will become a red giant and somewhere along the way it will stop supporting life on this planet. If humans are to survive they will have to learn to do it independantly from their star of origine. If they learn to do that they may be able to learn to survive cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe. There's no reason to think that could not be beings who can already do that, and there's no reason to think that if they have none of them have become gods.
We're just in there somewhere/
Eventually the sun will become a red giant and somewhere along the way it will stop supporting life on this planet. If humans are to survive they will have to learn to do it independantly from their star of origine. If they learn to do that they may be able to learn to survive cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe. There's no reason to think that could not be beings who can already do that, and there's no reason to think that if they have none of them have become gods.
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 27 2009, 06:43 AM)
Consider all organizations which are not religion based, such as the UNICEF, UNHCR, Red Cross, Amnesty International etc. Proof that you don't need God to do good.
Still nothing good that came from atheism though.
Still nothing good that came from atheism though.
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 27 2009, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
We should be, even at the time of their slaughter. Why not?
Slaughter is not kind and considerate.
When done correctly cattle don't feel pain or have any idea what's going on. And don't try the trick of pretending their lives are "ended prematurely" as advocates of the gross mi$nomer "animal rights" try to do, because I'm aware of and appreciate the fact that billions of animals experience decent lives of positive value ONLY because humans raise them for food. Anyone who has any consideration for the animals at all should understand and appreciate that aspect of the situation, and give the animals' lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Misnomer advocates don't offer livestock longer lives, or better lives, or "rights", or anything at all. The option is what they get or nothing, and misnomer huggers want it to be nothing. That being the case they're often maniacally opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration because it works against their elimination objective, and suggests that providing billions of them with decent lives could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination.
Slaughter is not kind and considerate.
When done correctly cattle don't feel pain or have any idea what's going on. And don't try the trick of pretending their lives are "ended prematurely" as advocates of the gross mi$nomer "animal rights" try to do, because I'm aware of and appreciate the fact that billions of animals experience decent lives of positive value ONLY because humans raise them for food. Anyone who has any consideration for the animals at all should understand and appreciate that aspect of the situation, and give the animals' lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Misnomer advocates don't offer livestock longer lives, or better lives, or "rights", or anything at all. The option is what they get or nothing, and misnomer huggers want it to be nothing. That being the case they're often maniacally opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration because it works against their elimination objective, and suggests that providing billions of them with decent lives could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
We are not kind and considerate to cattle.
We were kind and considerate enough to ours, and so has been every farmer I've known who had cattle.
We were kind and considerate enough to ours, and so has been every farmer I've known who had cattle.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Similarly, advanced aliens may not be kind and considerate towards us.
Or maybe they are being by not enslaving us. Or maybe we're in a similar situation as the cattle, and our souls will be in some way(s) consumed by beings when we die. We don't know...we including you.
Or maybe they are being by not enslaving us. Or maybe we're in a similar situation as the cattle, and our souls will be in some way(s) consumed by beings when we die. We don't know...we including you.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 29 2009, 07:45 PM)
Still nothing good that came from atheism though.
How does that have anything to do whether God exists or not?
How does that have anything to do whether God exists or not?
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 29 2009, 03:45 PM)
Still nothing good that came from atheism though.
You mean like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the hundreds of scientists who disbelieve in all particular deities? Yeah, real tragedy there.
You mean like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the hundreds of scientists who disbelieve in all particular deities? Yeah, real tragedy there.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 30 2009, 01:30 AM)
Or maybe they are being by not enslaving us. Or maybe we're in a similar situation as the cattle, and our souls will be in some way(s) consumed by beings when we die. We don't know...we including you.
Or maybe they haven't discovered us yet.
Or maybe they haven't discovered us yet.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 30 2009, 12:40 AM)
There's no reason to think that could not be beings who can already do that, and there's no reason to think that if they have none of them have become gods.
That is nothing more than overactive imagination.
That is nothing more than overactive imagination.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 30 2009, 01:15 AM)
Still nothing good that came from atheism though.
wrong
wrong
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 29 2009, 08:00 PM)
Or maybe we're in a similar situation as the cattle, and our souls will be in some way(s) consumed by beings when we die. We don't know...we including you.
Soul? What is this soul of which you speak? Any evidence for such a thing?
Soul? What is this soul of which you speak? Any evidence for such a thing?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 29 2009, 09:43 PM)
Soul? What is this soul of which you speak?
We know that "we" are a collection of our own thoughts and memories. Maybe that's all "we" are. If not whatever else composes us as individual beings in a way that could maintain our individuality after our bodies can no longer do so, is what people refer to as our soul.
We know that "we" are a collection of our own thoughts and memories. Maybe that's all "we" are. If not whatever else composes us as individual beings in a way that could maintain our individuality after our bodies can no longer do so, is what people refer to as our soul.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
Any evidence for such a thing?
I don't know.
I don't know.
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 29 2009, 09:33 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
There's no reason to think that could not be beings who can already do that, and there's no reason to think that if they have none of them have become gods.
That is nothing more than overactive imagination.
Are you claiming that no beings in the universe have learned to survive independant of their original star, or that none have learned to survive cycles of the universe? Or both? How did you find out?
That is nothing more than overactive imagination.
Are you claiming that no beings in the universe have learned to survive independant of their original star, or that none have learned to survive cycles of the universe? Or both? How did you find out?
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 30 2009, 05:25 PM)
We know that "we" are a collection of our own thoughts and memories. Maybe that's all "we" are. If not whatever else composes us as individual beings in a way that could maintain our individuality after our bodies can no longer do so, is what people refer to as our soul.
Big IF there...
As far as I can tell, the only part of us that survives death is the love and respect our friends and family have for us.
Big IF there...
As far as I can tell, the only part of us that survives death is the love and respect our friends and family have for us.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 29 2009, 08:19 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Still nothing good that came from atheism though.
You mean like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the hundreds of scientists who disbelieve in all particular deities?
No. They didn't come from atheism. Some of them may have been atheists, and maybe they all were, but they didn't come from atheism whether any of them were true atheists or not. If they were strong atheists, I wonder if any of them were stupid enough to deny their faith. I've only encountered a few who are not, but several times more than that who are. From my experience I've found that the majority of strong atheists are stupid enough to deny the faith that's required in order for a person to be one.
You mean like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the hundreds of scientists who disbelieve in all particular deities?
No. They didn't come from atheism. Some of them may have been atheists, and maybe they all were, but they didn't come from atheism whether any of them were true atheists or not. If they were strong atheists, I wonder if any of them were stupid enough to deny their faith. I've only encountered a few who are not, but several times more than that who are. From my experience I've found that the majority of strong atheists are stupid enough to deny the faith that's required in order for a person to be one.
QUOTE (nopEda+Nov 30 2009, 10:57 PM)
Are you claiming that no beings in the universe have learned to survive independant of their original star, or that none have learned to survive cycles of the universe? Or both? How did you find out?
As of now, there is no evidence of any of that. You have nothing more than your overactive imagination.
As of now, there is no evidence of any of that. You have nothing more than your overactive imagination.
QUOTE (vkamath+Nov 30 2009, 08:50 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Are you claiming that no beings in the universe have learned to survive independant of their original star, or that none have learned to survive cycles of the universe? Or both? How did you find out?
As of now, there is no evidence of any of that.
As of now in this star system in which the most advanced beings can't even mine their own asteroid belt, and don't have a station or even a telescope on their own moon .
As of now, there is no evidence of any of that.
As of now in this star system in which the most advanced beings can't even mine their own asteroid belt, and don't have a station or even a telescope on their own moon . QUOTE (vkamath+)
You have nothing more than your overactive imagination.
How far have the most advanced beings in the universe gotten then? How do you think you found out?
How far have the most advanced beings in the universe gotten then? How do you think you found out?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
As of now in this star system in which the most advanced beings can't even mine their own asteroid belt, and don't have a station or even a telescope on their own moon.
...and your point is?
...and your point is?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
How far have the most advanced beings in the universe gotten then? How do you think you found out?
There is no way to know without evidence. Letting your imagination run wild is not replacement for it.
There is no way to know without evidence. Letting your imagination run wild is not replacement for it.
QUOTE (nopEda+Dec 1 2009, 05:21 PM)
As of now in this star system in which the most advanced beings can't even ...
...Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves...*
-This star system's most advanced beings went from "horse-and-wagon"
to "moon landing" in 1.5 generations.
-Asteroids make better Space Elevator counterweights.(1)
-Asteroids make better building blocks for BIGGER planetoids construction.
(1)-(Orbiting water reservoirs might substitute for counterweight)
-Asteroids make better Space Elevator counterweights.(1)
-Asteroids make better building blocks for BIGGER planetoids construction.
(1)-(Orbiting water reservoirs might substitute for counterweight)
...and don't have a station or even a telescope on their own moon...
-They have a station and telescope in orbit near their planet. They have planet-based telescopes with technology that meets or exceeds any costly lunar telescopes, at this time.
-Such installations on their moon are premature, as more infrastructure upgrading(2) needs to be accomplished on the surface of their planet, as well as geosynchro base habitat, homestead, township construction necessities.
(2)-(Actually, more than "upgrading a preexisting living condition", these beings need to completely revamp the way they habitat their planet surface)
*(Quote courtesy from Character: Oddball- Film: Kelly's Heroes - Writer: Troy Kennedy-Martin
...Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves...*
-This star system's most advanced beings went from "horse-and-wagon"
to "moon landing" in 1.5 generations.
QUOTE
... can't even mine their own asteroid belt...
-Asteroids make better Space Elevator counterweights.(1)
-Asteroids make better building blocks for BIGGER planetoids construction.
(1)-(Orbiting water reservoirs might substitute for counterweight)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... can't even mine their own asteroid belt... |
-Asteroids make better Space Elevator counterweights.(1)
-Asteroids make better building blocks for BIGGER planetoids construction.
(1)-(Orbiting water reservoirs might substitute for counterweight)
...and don't have a station or even a telescope on their own moon...
-They have a station and telescope in orbit near their planet. They have planet-based telescopes with technology that meets or exceeds any costly lunar telescopes, at this time.
-Such installations on their moon are premature, as more infrastructure upgrading(2) needs to be accomplished on the surface of their planet, as well as geosynchro base habitat, homestead, township construction necessities.
(2)-(Actually, more than "upgrading a preexisting living condition", these beings need to completely revamp the way they habitat their planet surface)
*(Quote courtesy from Character: Oddball- Film: Kelly's Heroes - Writer: Troy Kennedy-Martin
QUOTE (keith*+Dec 1 2009, 08:11 PM)
-This star system's most advanced beings went from "horse-and-wagon"
to "moon landing" in 1.5 generations.
So true. My great grandmother came to Texas in a covered wagon when she was a child. She had a portrait of the Apollo 11 crew on her bedroom wall as an adult.
One lifetime saw that change
to "moon landing" in 1.5 generations.
So true. My great grandmother came to Texas in a covered wagon when she was a child. She had a portrait of the Apollo 11 crew on her bedroom wall as an adult.
One lifetime saw that change
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Dec 1 2009, 08:38 PM)
So true. My great grandmother came to Texas in a covered wagon when she was a child. She had a portrait of the Apollo 11 crew on her bedroom wall as an adult.
One lifetime saw that change
Grandma's gen made the most JOBS since the building of the Pyramids.*
Seriously though, its like manifest destiny...get back on the growth track "UP"(1)
(1)-(or retake Panama Canal and head south to it)*
*-(disregard this statement as an unstudied speculation for pure knee-jerk propaganda purposes)
One lifetime saw that change
Grandma's gen made the most JOBS since the building of the Pyramids.*
Seriously though, its like manifest destiny...get back on the growth track "UP"(1)
(1)-(or retake Panama Canal and head south to it)*
*-(disregard this statement as an unstudied speculation for pure knee-jerk propaganda purposes)
QUOTE (vkamath+Dec 1 2009, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
How far have the most advanced beings in the universe gotten then? How do you think you found out?
There is no way to know without evidence.
I can try to think about it realistically. You apparently can not.
There is no way to know without evidence.
I can try to think about it realistically. You apparently can not.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Letting your imagination run wild is not replacement for it.
I can try to think about it realistically. You apparently can not. Your personal limitation doesn't limit me. I certainly believe there are beings in the universe who can survive independant of their star of origin, and quite possibly some who can survive cycles of the universe if it is indeed going through cycles.
I can try to think about it realistically. You apparently can not. Your personal limitation doesn't limit me. I certainly believe there are beings in the universe who can survive independant of their star of origin, and quite possibly some who can survive cycles of the universe if it is indeed going through cycles.
EVERYBODY
Stop replying to nopEda. Please.
Stop replying to nopEda. Please.
QUOTE (keith*+Dec 1 2009, 08:11 PM)
...Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves...*
-This star system's most advanced beings went from "horse-and-wagon"
to "moon landing" in 1.5 generations.
-This star system's most advanced beings went from "horse-and-wagon"
to "moon landing" in 1.5 generations.