Deadbeat is right in a roundabout way. Most people do operate according to a personal philosophy of sorts, deadbeat and I differ when the attempt is made to equate any personal philosophy and religion.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 21 2008, 05:56 PM)
Deadbeat is right in a roundabout way. Most people do operate according to a personal philosophy of sorts, deadbeat and I differ when the attempt is made to equate any personal philosophy and religion.
No he isn't right. His personal redefinition of the word "religion" is just that. It is his own personal redefinition. Atheism is not a religion. Secularism is not a religion. Atheists and Secularists don't prostrate themselves in prayer. Atheists and Secularists don't attend regular "services" of fellowship or instruction. Their "morality" comes from evolution just like their chromosomes. You can see examples of ANY "moral/immoral" behavior in all sorts of other species including but not limited to .... Theft, Love, Murder, Hate, Trust, Kindness, Homosexuality et al. He continuous attempts to establish moral connections to his mythology have been shown to be straight up WRONG here on multiple occasions in this forum. These "traits" developed as a result of environmental conditions and were passed along. End of story.
It makes him feel better about the word "religion" to include EVERYBODY and claim that EVERYONE has religion at the root of their philosophy but it is nothing more than his personal redefinition. It holds no water.
It might seem "nice" to placate him and stipulate that he is "right according to his definition" but that's akin to telling a serial murderer that he didn't really do anything wrong since "the voices" were directing him to kill people.
No he isn't right. His personal redefinition of the word "religion" is just that. It is his own personal redefinition. Atheism is not a religion. Secularism is not a religion. Atheists and Secularists don't prostrate themselves in prayer. Atheists and Secularists don't attend regular "services" of fellowship or instruction. Their "morality" comes from evolution just like their chromosomes. You can see examples of ANY "moral/immoral" behavior in all sorts of other species including but not limited to .... Theft, Love, Murder, Hate, Trust, Kindness, Homosexuality et al. He continuous attempts to establish moral connections to his mythology have been shown to be straight up WRONG here on multiple occasions in this forum. These "traits" developed as a result of environmental conditions and were passed along. End of story.
It makes him feel better about the word "religion" to include EVERYBODY and claim that EVERYONE has religion at the root of their philosophy but it is nothing more than his personal redefinition. It holds no water.
It might seem "nice" to placate him and stipulate that he is "right according to his definition" but that's akin to telling a serial murderer that he didn't really do anything wrong since "the voices" were directing him to kill people.
I agree with you fully. I stated my disagreement with deadbeat's classifying any code or action set as religion. I keep trying to give deadbeat some wiggle room to be sensible for some reason.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 21 2008, 07:11 PM)
I agree with you fully. I stated my disagreement with deadbeat's classifying any code or action set as religion. I keep trying to give deadbeat some wiggle room to be sensible for some reason.
A couple of relevant examples come to mind which would explain it.
In 1968 during the Mexico City Olympic games a Tanzanian Marathon runner named John Stephen Akwari finished in last place some 2 hours after the winner had crossed the finish line. Akwari was a fine runner and generally competitive at the distance. He certainly wasn't a favorite by any means though. In any case, during the race Akwari took a couple of bad tumbles one of which resulted in a serious stress fracture to his leg. But he continued. Over the last few miles of the race Akwari was seen to stop over and over only to find the inner resolve to finish. When he reached the stadium (bandaged and bloodied) some 20,000 people remained to cheer him. As he entered they stood and applauded his effort. When I saw this event documented some years later (by the most excellent Bud Greenspan on his documentary series "The Olympiad") I was moved to tears by Akwari's heroic effort. After the race he was asked why he didn't give up; he told the questioner that the people of his country sent him there to finish the race .. so he did.
The other example that comes to mind is the fictional character Don Quixote.
So I think the deal is ... that your sense of fair play (which deadbeat would attribute to "religion") just gives him credit for coming to the plate again and again regardless of how many bruises he suffers. I wouldn't assume to say that you admire his effort but that you probably appreciate it on some fundamental level.
Nothing wrong with that. Deadbeat will never score a touchdown, hit the back of the net, knock the ball out of the park, or break the tape at the finish line; but in some sense his futility is at least interesting to see.
A couple of relevant examples come to mind which would explain it.
In 1968 during the Mexico City Olympic games a Tanzanian Marathon runner named John Stephen Akwari finished in last place some 2 hours after the winner had crossed the finish line. Akwari was a fine runner and generally competitive at the distance. He certainly wasn't a favorite by any means though. In any case, during the race Akwari took a couple of bad tumbles one of which resulted in a serious stress fracture to his leg. But he continued. Over the last few miles of the race Akwari was seen to stop over and over only to find the inner resolve to finish. When he reached the stadium (bandaged and bloodied) some 20,000 people remained to cheer him. As he entered they stood and applauded his effort. When I saw this event documented some years later (by the most excellent Bud Greenspan on his documentary series "The Olympiad") I was moved to tears by Akwari's heroic effort. After the race he was asked why he didn't give up; he told the questioner that the people of his country sent him there to finish the race .. so he did.
The other example that comes to mind is the fictional character Don Quixote.
So I think the deal is ... that your sense of fair play (which deadbeat would attribute to "religion") just gives him credit for coming to the plate again and again regardless of how many bruises he suffers. I wouldn't assume to say that you admire his effort but that you probably appreciate it on some fundamental level.
Nothing wrong with that. Deadbeat will never score a touchdown, hit the back of the net, knock the ball out of the park, or break the tape at the finish line; but in some sense his futility is at least interesting to see.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
I was moved to tears by Akwari's heroic effort. After the race he was asked why he didn't give up; he told the questioner that the people of his country sent him there to finish the race .. so he did.
Hi guys
This post makes a good point. At what stage do you define "intelligent action/thought/reaction" from "chemical/force/law." . How you view this breakdown is very determinate of what you will accept can happen.
When an electron cycles through as the base of the structure in exactly the same way throughout the universe(time/light speed) without the need to 'reason' anything at all. How, while claiming evolution to be "inevitable' can we also claim the result to be "more" intelligent than the star becoming colossus within it's environment. Doesn't a star alter and change the environment to it's own suit. Doesn't a virus change the world constantly.
Why are you intelligent?Aren't ninety percent of the world's population at the mercy of the ten percent?.....in pure scientific terms, aren't you a bit biased and why are the parts of your brain more important to the end result of the universe than the ground you walk on?
Cheers
Iseason
Let me make another attempt to explain what I mean.
"Natural" ethics and morals is hilarious. They are mutually exclusive.
Consider: ethics and moral guidance are used to COUNTER natural appetites and urges that are counter-productive to societal and by extension, individual success.
Ethics and Morals are like SOCIAL evolution, which is superior to GENETIC evolution.
Genetic evolution works on a SLOW scale, over almost geological time, the changes required for advancement only happening each generation, requiring a completely new organism (genetic expression) to make an advance.
SOCIAL evolution: using ethics and morals, mental guidelines possible due to our increased mental capacity, ability to learn and communicate, make it possible for us to CHOOSE evolutionary improvements INCREDIBLY faster, as fast as we can invent them and change the behaviors. We change behaviors using our mental prowess IN SPITE of our natural tendencies.
The Ethics and Morals serve this social evolution, just like DNA serves genetic evolution.
So, sure, you can claim ALL KINDS of things to have some level of intelligence, if you merely require the measure of intelligence to be a "measureable effect on its environment to make a change beneficial to itself."
But the difference between Humans and everything else (even most if not all animals proveably) is ETHICS AND MORALS, the level of intellect and learning that can OVERCOME our natural genetic chemical and hormonal tendencies to change our environment JUST WITH OUR MINDS as guidance.
While some examples of animals may be close or capable, until we could actually communicate and understand them, it would be impossible to classify them as equivalent in this regard.
Let me make another attempt to explain what I mean.
"Natural" ethics and morals is hilarious. They are mutually exclusive.
Consider: ethics and moral guidance are used to COUNTER natural appetites and urges that are counter-productive to societal and by extension, individual success.
Ethics and Morals are like SOCIAL evolution, which is superior to GENETIC evolution.
Genetic evolution works on a SLOW scale, over almost geological time, the changes required for advancement only happening each generation, requiring a completely new organism (genetic expression) to make an advance.
SOCIAL evolution: using ethics and morals, mental guidelines possible due to our increased mental capacity, ability to learn and communicate, make it possible for us to CHOOSE evolutionary improvements INCREDIBLY faster, as fast as we can invent them and change the behaviors. We change behaviors using our mental prowess IN SPITE of our natural tendencies.
The Ethics and Morals serve this social evolution, just like DNA serves genetic evolution.
So, sure, you can claim ALL KINDS of things to have some level of intelligence, if you merely require the measure of intelligence to be a "measureable effect on its environment to make a change beneficial to itself."
But the difference between Humans and everything else (even most if not all animals proveably) is ETHICS AND MORALS, the level of intellect and learning that can OVERCOME our natural genetic chemical and hormonal tendencies to change our environment JUST WITH OUR MINDS as guidance.
While some examples of animals may be close or capable, until we could actually communicate and understand them, it would be impossible to classify them as equivalent in this regard.
Hi deadbeat.
nice to chat again. I'm playing up a little bit, but we do see something within ourselves that creates the 'illusion of intelligence'. I can quote many phrases in the bible warning against just this. 'If they did not then the very stones would sing'....'why do you call me good. don't you know only the father in heaven is good'........'from dust you are made and dust you shall return'.......
just to name a view.
I am aware of what you are saying. that 'choosing' the direction we follow is significant to the overall result. society does not appreciate the words. "I prefer you to be either hot or cold" . These are used to determine whether you lead or follow. If you follow a doctrine with a sound heart , the result will only ever be positive in the end. mistakes are inevitable and as followers we must reason as we do so. If we follow blindly then we deserve destruction. But when we question each interpretation of direction, honesty becomes a greater part of the human experience.
This is why the ruling religious class of Jesus day was at odds with him and he with them. following blindly leads to selfish results which benefit the few. (currently in society , this is the case). honesty would not allow itself to devalue other persons, ending in Hitler's massacres. Honesty would not stay put within a church which relied on 'playacting ' to prove miracles still happen.
to return to the subject. There is no physical difference between us as human animals and other species, just as there is no difference between us and the dust. Intelligence owes a price to others less intelligent no less than THOSE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT OWE TO THOSE WHO CANNOT.
The sun rules over us in this galaxy, but only because it gives us something in return. Religion was there to create a good return for man while society developed. Repetition is a distinctive quality in structure and is very natural as a behavior up to a point of human development.
Once repetition becomes more important than the outcome or advancement , it stagnates the process. Religion has had to constantly update in order to remain relevant in the 20th century. It is failing in this dismally.
To quote Jesus again "if you don't , the very stones will rise up and sing!".
Not meant to be directed at dead beat, but the bible does not call man intelligent more that the stars or the moon.
Cheers
Iseason
Destruction can be seen as positive then? (Or does that only apply to the understanding of Infinite space?)
g.
Destruction can be seen as positive then? (Or does that only apply to the understanding of Infinite space?)
g.
In a way,yes.
"don't be dismayed by war or rumours of war. These things must happen."
Evolution is not a science of trial and error as some suppose. It moves inexorably in one direction. Mountains don't fall up, we don't revert to the dinosaur era, Humans don't tend to become monkeys. (Though we will always try).
The paths we choose are always dictated by the hot and cold persona within our group. Never has a 'lukewarm' argument won the day. Either you will fight to the death or defend to the death or change to suit the new environment.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
So I think the deal is ... that your sense of fair play (which deadbeat would attribute to "religion") just gives him credit for coming to the plate again and again regardless of how many bruises he suffers. I wouldn't assume to say that you admire his effort but that you probably appreciate it on some fundamental level.
Nothing wrong with that. Deadbeat will never score a touchdown, hit the back of the net, knock the ball out of the park, or break the tape at the finish line; but in some sense his futility is at least interesting to see.
uaafanblog: Although I understand what you're saying, I'd just like to add that the glaring difference between Akwari's efforts and deadbeat's efforts is that Akwari was sent by the people of his country to finish the race whereas deadbeat's efforts are entirely his own.
You were "moved to tears" by Akwari's heroic effort...
Deadbeat's efforts are "a crying shame" as they bring a reproach upon the Christian God...a God Who never entered deadbeat in the "race" that he's presently running in the wrong direction...
Nothing wrong with that. Deadbeat will never score a touchdown, hit the back of the net, knock the ball out of the park, or break the tape at the finish line; but in some sense his futility is at least interesting to see.
uaafanblog: Although I understand what you're saying, I'd just like to add that the glaring difference between Akwari's efforts and deadbeat's efforts is that Akwari was sent by the people of his country to finish the race whereas deadbeat's efforts are entirely his own.
You were "moved to tears" by Akwari's heroic effort...
Deadbeat's efforts are "a crying shame" as they bring a reproach upon the Christian God...a God Who never entered deadbeat in the "race" that he's presently running in the wrong direction...
Everybody has a 'philosophy' of some kind. It is our 'world view', so to speak.
'Let's go down the pub and get hammered' ~
'Let's go invade some poor country and take its oil' ~
'Let's try to understand our surroundings so that we may exist within them with more efficiency' ~
'God is responsible, not me!' ~
...are all 'philosophies' of Humans.
'Let's go down the pub and get hammered' ~
'Let's go invade some poor country and take its oil' ~
'Let's try to understand our surroundings so that we may exist within them with more efficiency' ~
'God is responsible, not me!' ~
...are all 'philosophies' of Humans.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 18 2008, 12:19 PM)
deadbeat,
I will try to reiterate the response I made while rushing to go to work.
I wrote:
All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
You said it was impossible.
I suggested the lower animals without the time to expand on that.
Don't you see it is possible for them. Not only possible but it works.
Even animals can understand there are consequences for certain actions good and bad.
The main point I was making was that superstition is part of being human and I doubt it can be removed.
deadbeat, do you need your religion to tell you right from wrong or do you actually have a conscience
Hi guys
This post makes a good point. At what stage do you define "intelligent action/thought/reaction" from "chemical/force/law." . How you view this breakdown is very determinate of what you will accept can happen.
When an electron cycles through as the base of the structure in exactly the same way throughout the universe(time/light speed) without the need to 'reason' anything at all. How, while claiming evolution to be "inevitable' can we also claim the result to be "more" intelligent than the star becoming colossus within it's environment. Doesn't a star alter and change the environment to it's own suit. Doesn't a virus change the world constantly.
Why are you intelligent?Aren't ninety percent of the world's population at the mercy of the ten percent?.....in pure scientific terms, aren't you a bit biased and why are the parts of your brain more important to the end result of the universe than the ground you walk on?
Cheers
Iseason
I will try to reiterate the response I made while rushing to go to work.
I wrote:
All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
You said it was impossible.
I suggested the lower animals without the time to expand on that.
Don't you see it is possible for them. Not only possible but it works.
Even animals can understand there are consequences for certain actions good and bad.
The main point I was making was that superstition is part of being human and I doubt it can be removed.
deadbeat, do you need your religion to tell you right from wrong or do you actually have a conscience
Hi guys
This post makes a good point. At what stage do you define "intelligent action/thought/reaction" from "chemical/force/law." . How you view this breakdown is very determinate of what you will accept can happen.
When an electron cycles through as the base of the structure in exactly the same way throughout the universe(time/light speed) without the need to 'reason' anything at all. How, while claiming evolution to be "inevitable' can we also claim the result to be "more" intelligent than the star becoming colossus within it's environment. Doesn't a star alter and change the environment to it's own suit. Doesn't a virus change the world constantly.
Why are you intelligent?Aren't ninety percent of the world's population at the mercy of the ten percent?.....in pure scientific terms, aren't you a bit biased and why are the parts of your brain more important to the end result of the universe than the ground you walk on?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 23 2008, 08:20 AM)
Hi guys
This post makes a good point. At what stage do you define "intelligent action/thought/reaction" from "chemical/force/law." . How you view this breakdown is very determinate of what you will accept can happen.
When an electron cycles through as the base of the structure in exactly the same way throughout the universe(time/light speed) without the need to 'reason' anything at all. How, while claiming evolution to be "inevitable' can we also claim the result to be "more" intelligent than the star becoming colossus within it's environment. Doesn't a star alter and change the environment to it's own suit. Doesn't a virus change the world constantly.
Why are you intelligent?Aren't ninety percent of the world's population at the mercy of the ten percent?.....in pure scientific terms, aren't you a bit biased and why are the parts of your brain more important to the end result of the universe than the ground you walk on?
Cheers
Iseason
Let me make another attempt to explain what I mean.
"Natural" ethics and morals is hilarious. They are mutually exclusive.
Consider: ethics and moral guidance are used to COUNTER natural appetites and urges that are counter-productive to societal and by extension, individual success.
Ethics and Morals are like SOCIAL evolution, which is superior to GENETIC evolution.
Genetic evolution works on a SLOW scale, over almost geological time, the changes required for advancement only happening each generation, requiring a completely new organism (genetic expression) to make an advance.
SOCIAL evolution: using ethics and morals, mental guidelines possible due to our increased mental capacity, ability to learn and communicate, make it possible for us to CHOOSE evolutionary improvements INCREDIBLY faster, as fast as we can invent them and change the behaviors. We change behaviors using our mental prowess IN SPITE of our natural tendencies.
The Ethics and Morals serve this social evolution, just like DNA serves genetic evolution.
So, sure, you can claim ALL KINDS of things to have some level of intelligence, if you merely require the measure of intelligence to be a "measureable effect on its environment to make a change beneficial to itself."
But the difference between Humans and everything else (even most if not all animals proveably) is ETHICS AND MORALS, the level of intellect and learning that can OVERCOME our natural genetic chemical and hormonal tendencies to change our environment JUST WITH OUR MINDS as guidance.
While some examples of animals may be close or capable, until we could actually communicate and understand them, it would be impossible to classify them as equivalent in this regard.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 24 2008, 04:17 PM)
Let me make another attempt to explain what I mean.
"Natural" ethics and morals is hilarious. They are mutually exclusive.
Consider: ethics and moral guidance are used to COUNTER natural appetites and urges that are counter-productive to societal and by extension, individual success.
Ethics and Morals are like SOCIAL evolution, which is superior to GENETIC evolution.
Genetic evolution works on a SLOW scale, over almost geological time, the changes required for advancement only happening each generation, requiring a completely new organism (genetic expression) to make an advance.
SOCIAL evolution: using ethics and morals, mental guidelines possible due to our increased mental capacity, ability to learn and communicate, make it possible for us to CHOOSE evolutionary improvements INCREDIBLY faster, as fast as we can invent them and change the behaviors. We change behaviors using our mental prowess IN SPITE of our natural tendencies.
The Ethics and Morals serve this social evolution, just like DNA serves genetic evolution.
So, sure, you can claim ALL KINDS of things to have some level of intelligence, if you merely require the measure of intelligence to be a "measureable effect on its environment to make a change beneficial to itself."
But the difference between Humans and everything else (even most if not all animals proveably) is ETHICS AND MORALS, the level of intellect and learning that can OVERCOME our natural genetic chemical and hormonal tendencies to change our environment JUST WITH OUR MINDS as guidance.
While some examples of animals may be close or capable, until we could actually communicate and understand them, it would be impossible to classify them as equivalent in this regard.
Hi deadbeat.
nice to chat again. I'm playing up a little bit, but we do see something within ourselves that creates the 'illusion of intelligence'. I can quote many phrases in the bible warning against just this. 'If they did not then the very stones would sing'....'why do you call me good. don't you know only the father in heaven is good'........'from dust you are made and dust you shall return'.......
just to name a view.
I am aware of what you are saying. that 'choosing' the direction we follow is significant to the overall result. society does not appreciate the words. "I prefer you to be either hot or cold" . These are used to determine whether you lead or follow. If you follow a doctrine with a sound heart , the result will only ever be positive in the end. mistakes are inevitable and as followers we must reason as we do so. If we follow blindly then we deserve destruction. But when we question each interpretation of direction, honesty becomes a greater part of the human experience.
This is why the ruling religious class of Jesus day was at odds with him and he with them. following blindly leads to selfish results which benefit the few. (currently in society , this is the case). honesty would not allow itself to devalue other persons, ending in Hitler's massacres. Honesty would not stay put within a church which relied on 'playacting ' to prove miracles still happen.
to return to the subject. There is no physical difference between us as human animals and other species, just as there is no difference between us and the dust. Intelligence owes a price to others less intelligent no less than THOSE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT OWE TO THOSE WHO CANNOT.
The sun rules over us in this galaxy, but only because it gives us something in return. Religion was there to create a good return for man while society developed. Repetition is a distinctive quality in structure and is very natural as a behavior up to a point of human development.
Once repetition becomes more important than the outcome or advancement , it stagnates the process. Religion has had to constantly update in order to remain relevant in the 20th century. It is failing in this dismally.
To quote Jesus again "if you don't , the very stones will rise up and sing!".
Not meant to be directed at dead beat, but the bible does not call man intelligent more that the stars or the moon.
Cheers
Iseason
deadbeat
"Natural" ethics and morals is hilarious. They are mutually exclusive.
Consider: ethics and moral guidance are used to COUNTER natural appetites and urges that are counter-productive to societal and by extension, individual success.
Ethics and Morals are like SOCIAL evolution, which is superior to GENETIC evolution.
So you have SAID, but we have SHOWN you examples, in nature(outside man's control), that falsify that statement. You are simply wrong. Every mammal has ethics, only man has religion.
Ethics and morals are the RESULT of genetic evolution, SOCIETY is the accumulation of those widely held ethics, not the source for them. Religion is based on the codification of those ideas, morals, etc.
The morals of religion was once told by word of mouth, usually told around a campfire in "Just So" stories that each had a "moral to the story". These were eventually written down and thus , to a large extent, religions are based on these not-quite-true but instructive(or fear assuaging, or fear of authority inducing, etc.) stories of the shaman, scribes, storytellers and cheifs.
So even religions are the result of evolution, genetic evolution, in the higher orders(if not all) of mammals.
Grumpy
QUOTE
"Natural" ethics and morals is hilarious. They are mutually exclusive.
Consider: ethics and moral guidance are used to COUNTER natural appetites and urges that are counter-productive to societal and by extension, individual success.
Ethics and Morals are like SOCIAL evolution, which is superior to GENETIC evolution.
So you have SAID, but we have SHOWN you examples, in nature(outside man's control), that falsify that statement. You are simply wrong. Every mammal has ethics, only man has religion.
Ethics and morals are the RESULT of genetic evolution, SOCIETY is the accumulation of those widely held ethics, not the source for them. Religion is based on the codification of those ideas, morals, etc.
The morals of religion was once told by word of mouth, usually told around a campfire in "Just So" stories that each had a "moral to the story". These were eventually written down and thus , to a large extent, religions are based on these not-quite-true but instructive(or fear assuaging, or fear of authority inducing, etc.) stories of the shaman, scribes, storytellers and cheifs.
So even religions are the result of evolution, genetic evolution, in the higher orders(if not all) of mammals.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If you follow a doctrine with a sound heart , the result will only ever be positive in the end... If we follow blindly then we deserve destruction.
Destruction can be seen as positive then? (Or does that only apply to the understanding of Infinite space?)
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 25 2008, 08:08 AM)
Destruction can be seen as positive then? (Or does that only apply to the understanding of Infinite space?)
g.
In a way,yes.
"don't be dismayed by war or rumours of war. These things must happen."
Evolution is not a science of trial and error as some suppose. It moves inexorably in one direction. Mountains don't fall up, we don't revert to the dinosaur era, Humans don't tend to become monkeys. (Though we will always try).
The paths we choose are always dictated by the hot and cold persona within our group. Never has a 'lukewarm' argument won the day. Either you will fight to the death or defend to the death or change to suit the new environment.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 24 2008, 08:21 AM)
In a way,yes.
"don't be dismayed by war or rumours of war. These things must happen."
Evolution is not a science of trial and error as some suppose. It moves inexorably in one direction. Mountains don't fall up, we don't revert to the dinosaur era, Humans don't tend to become monkeys. (Though we will always try).
The paths we choose are always dictated by the hot and cold persona within our group. Never has a 'lukewarm' argument won the day. Either you will fight to the death or defend to the death or change to suit the new environment.
Cheers
Iseason
So, you would rather die than accept the truth.
This is not 'news' to me. This is what I know of most people. This is also the great hurdle facing Humanity right now (and not just the 'religious').
There is your answer to the thread title, so at least you are on topic this time. "Which is more sensible?" iseason says death is more sensible than truth.
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
g.
"don't be dismayed by war or rumours of war. These things must happen."
Evolution is not a science of trial and error as some suppose. It moves inexorably in one direction. Mountains don't fall up, we don't revert to the dinosaur era, Humans don't tend to become monkeys. (Though we will always try).
The paths we choose are always dictated by the hot and cold persona within our group. Never has a 'lukewarm' argument won the day. Either you will fight to the death or defend to the death or change to suit the new environment.
Cheers
Iseason
So, you would rather die than accept the truth.
This is not 'news' to me. This is what I know of most people. This is also the great hurdle facing Humanity right now (and not just the 'religious').
There is your answer to the thread title, so at least you are on topic this time. "Which is more sensible?" iseason says death is more sensible than truth.
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 24 2008, 07:29 PM)
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
QUOTE (Gorgeous @ Jun 24 2008+ 07:29 PM)
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
So you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
Tell you what, Mr. master debater
Show me a link to a CATHOLIC SPONSORED example of religious bias or bigotry. Not your fevered imaginings of what you dream we are doing or think, an actual link or quote of something Catholic. Should be easy to do, as you are so certain my religion is so rife with hatred.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 24 2008, 07:07 PM)
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
So you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
So you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 25 2008, 01:49 AM)
So you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
Tell you what, Mr. master debater
Show me a link to a CATHOLIC SPONSORED example of religious bias or bigotry. Not your fevered imaginings of what you dream we are doing or think, an actual link or quote of something Catholic. Should be easy to do, as you are so certain my religion is so rife with hatred.
QUOTE (DB+)
Tell you what, Mr. master debater
Wow. That old insult again. Surely you can post a better ad hominem.
So I do have to link to the RCC stance that the rights and freedoms of homosexuals are less then heterosexuals? You are obtuse in debates.
So I do have to link to the RCC stance that the rights and freedoms of homosexuals are less then heterosexuals? You are obtuse in debates.
Not your fevered imaginings of what you dream we are doing or think, an actual link or quote of something Catholic.
Again, common knowledge and stance unless you are claiming that the RCC enforces same sex marriage.
You mean my former religion? Yes, it is.
I don’t need to link to something that everyone knows is the stance of the RCC, let alone a person claiming to be an RC in good standing.
But you ignored the direct question of your posted claim.
You posted:
You mean my former religion? Yes, it is.
I don’t need to link to something that everyone knows is the stance of the RCC, let alone a person claiming to be an RC in good standing.
But you ignored the direct question of your posted claim.
You posted:
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
In response to and citing Gorgeous’ post:
So again, I ask, you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
You can keep posting tangents and moot claims, questions and demands, but the question stands as it appears that you seek to keep religious biased and bigotry alive.
Perhaps you misspoke again?
So I do have to link to the RCC stance that the rights and freedoms of homosexuals are less then heterosexuals? You are obtuse in debates.
Umm...yeah you do. Since you have no external support for your bigoted rantings, you certainly do.
Show me a link to a CATHOLIC SPONSORED example of religious bias or bigotry.
Again, common knowledge and stance unless you are claiming that the RCC enforces same sex marriage.
Ah, it is so "common knowledge" that you cannot find unbiased support for it. Just shows how uncommon knowledge is.
You mean my former religion? Yes, it is.
HAHAHAH you never had a religion. You had a fantasy.
I don’t need to link to something that everyone knows is the stance of the RCC, let alone a person claiming to be an RC in good standing.
Can't do it huh? Shame that your deceit is revealed for all to see.
Wow. That old insult again. Surely you can post a better ad hominem.
QUOTE
Show me a link to a CATHOLIC SPONSORED example of religious bias or bigotry.
So I do have to link to the RCC stance that the rights and freedoms of homosexuals are less then heterosexuals? You are obtuse in debates.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Show me a link to a CATHOLIC SPONSORED example of religious bias or bigotry. |
So I do have to link to the RCC stance that the rights and freedoms of homosexuals are less then heterosexuals? You are obtuse in debates.
Not your fevered imaginings of what you dream we are doing or think, an actual link or quote of something Catholic.
Again, common knowledge and stance unless you are claiming that the RCC enforces same sex marriage.
QUOTE
Should be easy to do, as you are so certain my religion is so rife with hatred.
You mean my former religion? Yes, it is.
I don’t need to link to something that everyone knows is the stance of the RCC, let alone a person claiming to be an RC in good standing.
But you ignored the direct question of your posted claim.
You posted:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Should be easy to do, as you are so certain my religion is so rife with hatred. |
You mean my former religion? Yes, it is.
I don’t need to link to something that everyone knows is the stance of the RCC, let alone a person claiming to be an RC in good standing.
But you ignored the direct question of your posted claim.
You posted:
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
In response to and citing Gorgeous’ post:
QUOTE
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
So again, I ask, you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
You can keep posting tangents and moot claims, questions and demands, but the question stands as it appears that you seek to keep religious biased and bigotry alive.
Perhaps you misspoke again?
QUOTE (Dad2+Jun 25 2008, 03:03 AM)
So I do have to link to the RCC stance that the rights and freedoms of homosexuals are less then heterosexuals? You are obtuse in debates.
Umm...yeah you do. Since you have no external support for your bigoted rantings, you certainly do.
QUOTE (Dad2+Jun 25 2008, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Show me a link to a CATHOLIC SPONSORED example of religious bias or bigotry.
Again, common knowledge and stance unless you are claiming that the RCC enforces same sex marriage.
Ah, it is so "common knowledge" that you cannot find unbiased support for it. Just shows how uncommon knowledge is.
QUOTE (Dad2+Jun 25 2008, 03:03 AM)
You mean my former religion? Yes, it is.
HAHAHAH you never had a religion. You had a fantasy.
QUOTE (Dad2+Jun 25 2008, 03:03 AM)
I don’t need to link to something that everyone knows is the stance of the RCC, let alone a person claiming to be an RC in good standing.
Can't do it huh? Shame that your deceit is revealed for all to see.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 25 2008, 08:21 AM)
In a way,yes.
"don't be dismayed by war or rumours of war. These things must happen."
Evolution is not a science of trial and error as some suppose. It moves inexorably in one direction. Mountains don't fall up, we don't revert to the dinosaur era, Humans don't tend to become monkeys. (Though we will always try).
The paths we choose are always dictated by the hot and cold persona within our group. Never has a 'lukewarm' argument won the day. Either you will fight to the death or defend to the death or change to suit the new environment.
Cheers
Iseason
For G.
I am re quoting my post for all to see. you and I have been in this forum for quite a while. neither seems about to give ground nor change our original stance on this subject. This is what I mean about my 'style' of fight to the death.
But in other neighborhoods, fighting to the death in actuality, is much more than an observation on an Internet board. I don't advocate that anyone should do so , but I also don't live in a closet without a news channel. It IS commonplace for parties on either side of big issues to 'fight to the death' and in times gone by, much more commonplace than nowadays. I am not surprised at all that you have tried to taint me as supporting this when you could have read numerous posts where I have talked against all manner of extreme actions. But then I expect no less from you.
Few can benefit from change won by force. This is the greatest folly that just never seems to go away. As America is finding out you must win the war , but more importantly , you must win the peace.
Any one who wants to make great change ,must also bear the responsibility of that change. At present there is a great cry against "the religious oppressor'. I hope that when they are removed, which I believe will happen, that the factions who want it are prepared to shoulder the responsibility that was held AS WELL by the position of leaders.
So far , I can't see enough of the honesty that is so bandied about on behalf of "the new truth" to make me feel that it will be the brave new world that you keep promising. If your brand of honesty is part of that , then I'm sorry for you. Because you aren't even prepared for the trouble you are about to bring upon yourselves. Not because you won't get what you want, but because you are not honest about the work and extra cost that it entails.
Iseason
"don't be dismayed by war or rumours of war. These things must happen."
Evolution is not a science of trial and error as some suppose. It moves inexorably in one direction. Mountains don't fall up, we don't revert to the dinosaur era, Humans don't tend to become monkeys. (Though we will always try).
The paths we choose are always dictated by the hot and cold persona within our group. Never has a 'lukewarm' argument won the day. Either you will fight to the death or defend to the death or change to suit the new environment.
Cheers
Iseason
For G.
I am re quoting my post for all to see. you and I have been in this forum for quite a while. neither seems about to give ground nor change our original stance on this subject. This is what I mean about my 'style' of fight to the death.
But in other neighborhoods, fighting to the death in actuality, is much more than an observation on an Internet board. I don't advocate that anyone should do so , but I also don't live in a closet without a news channel. It IS commonplace for parties on either side of big issues to 'fight to the death' and in times gone by, much more commonplace than nowadays. I am not surprised at all that you have tried to taint me as supporting this when you could have read numerous posts where I have talked against all manner of extreme actions. But then I expect no less from you.
Few can benefit from change won by force. This is the greatest folly that just never seems to go away. As America is finding out you must win the war , but more importantly , you must win the peace.
Any one who wants to make great change ,must also bear the responsibility of that change. At present there is a great cry against "the religious oppressor'. I hope that when they are removed, which I believe will happen, that the factions who want it are prepared to shoulder the responsibility that was held AS WELL by the position of leaders.
So far , I can't see enough of the honesty that is so bandied about on behalf of "the new truth" to make me feel that it will be the brave new world that you keep promising. If your brand of honesty is part of that , then I'm sorry for you. Because you aren't even prepared for the trouble you are about to bring upon yourselves. Not because you won't get what you want, but because you are not honest about the work and extra cost that it entails.
Iseason
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 24 2008, 12:07 PM)
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
YOU are the closet fascist deadbeat, and you are beginning to know it, which is why you are observedly fighting harder against it (yourself) now.
iseason,
Did you not think that all could see your post before?
The trouble is that others can see elements of ourselves that we personally fail to acknowledge.
Some people are obviously getting more distressed ~ deadbeat, for example ~ as their 'religion' goes down the pan, and they are forced to look at themselves and what they have become for the first time. In the traditional manner, they deny aspects of themselves by pretending others have the 'problem' that they are themselves suffering from. (Weapons of mass deception!)
'Religion' with all of its inherently self-destructive flaws simply has not worked for Humans. Thus, we need more balanced forms of philosophical thought to help us with our understandings. Deadbeat is worried that whatever comes next will be 'worse' than whatever catholicism has done for us, however, it is not a question of 'religions' but of People, and how they treat each other, regardless of whatever 'group names' they feel like calling themselves. Thus, his denial of his own inner-fascist merely perpetuates the rise of such things within our future societies. This is how 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
Let us not forget that the original question I asked iseason was whether he thought destruction was positive? The 'environment' is constantly changing, and we are also 'it'.
g.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
YOU are the closet fascist deadbeat, and you are beginning to know it, which is why you are observedly fighting harder against it (yourself) now.
iseason,
Did you not think that all could see your post before?
The trouble is that others can see elements of ourselves that we personally fail to acknowledge.
Some people are obviously getting more distressed ~ deadbeat, for example ~ as their 'religion' goes down the pan, and they are forced to look at themselves and what they have become for the first time. In the traditional manner, they deny aspects of themselves by pretending others have the 'problem' that they are themselves suffering from. (Weapons of mass deception!)
'Religion' with all of its inherently self-destructive flaws simply has not worked for Humans. Thus, we need more balanced forms of philosophical thought to help us with our understandings. Deadbeat is worried that whatever comes next will be 'worse' than whatever catholicism has done for us, however, it is not a question of 'religions' but of People, and how they treat each other, regardless of whatever 'group names' they feel like calling themselves. Thus, his denial of his own inner-fascist merely perpetuates the rise of such things within our future societies. This is how 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
Let us not forget that the original question I asked iseason was whether he thought destruction was positive? The 'environment' is constantly changing, and we are also 'it'.
g.
QUOTE (DB+)
Umm...yeah you do. Since you have no external support for your bigoted rantings, you certainly do.
So you did go with acting more juvenile than normal. “Dad2” is the best you can do?
Okay, since you obviously are ignorant of what your church has stated about homosexuals, as if you really are a member of the RC, here are a few stories to illustrate the bigotry and hatred from the RCC.
Link
Link
Link
Pope Benedict has condemned same-sex unions, calling them expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threaten the future of the family.
It is the Pope's first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election in April.
Again, both the Pope and the RCC seek to limit or interfere with personal freedoms based only upon sexual orientation. This is bigoted and biased.
Unbiased as in your ridiculous calls for proof that you will accept is not rational nor reasonable. You demand a RC source and will ignore anything that cited a stance by the RCC and the pope that are bigoted, biased and simply hate filled.
Unbiased as in your ridiculous calls for proof that you will accept is not rational nor reasonable. You demand a RC source and will ignore anything that cited a stance by the RCC and the pope that are bigoted, biased and simply hate filled.
Just shows how uncommon knowledge is.
No, just goes to show how obtuse you are in a debate and what ridiculous demands and actions you will take in order to try to defend your untenable claims.
Partially correct, but not in the way you mean. Religion is fantasy, IMHO.
And again DB, you are a convert to the religion I eventually rejected. You can make all the nonsensical claims you like about how what I was taught about the RC is not longer true since I am no longer a follower, but such claims form you are simple irrational and illogical.
But even your claims of conversion are highly questionable considering you claimed to be a Baptist in your youth prior to becoming an atheist out of rage towards your parents and then your conversion to the RC faith. Odd how you once referred to yourself as a Protestant in your youth. I know of no Baptists that would label themselves as such.
Considering your inability to remember what you have posted and your inability to remember just who you are debating and what they actually stated, it appears more like your tall tale about your religious past is just that.
Partially correct, but not in the way you mean. Religion is fantasy, IMHO.
And again DB, you are a convert to the religion I eventually rejected. You can make all the nonsensical claims you like about how what I was taught about the RC is not longer true since I am no longer a follower, but such claims form you are simple irrational and illogical.
But even your claims of conversion are highly questionable considering you claimed to be a Baptist in your youth prior to becoming an atheist out of rage towards your parents and then your conversion to the RC faith. Odd how you once referred to yourself as a Protestant in your youth. I know of no Baptists that would label themselves as such.
Considering your inability to remember what you have posted and your inability to remember just who you are debating and what they actually stated, it appears more like your tall tale about your religious past is just that.
Can't do it huh?
Sure, but only an intentional ignorant or willfully blind person would demand such.
What deceit? You claim to be an RC in good standing yet do not know of the biased and bigoted stances that the RCC and Pope have taken.
I think the deceit is yours.
And again you have avoided answering the more pertinent question in favor of calling me more names and making claims you cannot back up.
So, for the third time, here is the question you keep avoiding.
Gorgeous’ post:
What deceit? You claim to be an RC in good standing yet do not know of the biased and bigoted stances that the RCC and Pope have taken.
I think the deceit is yours.
And again you have avoided answering the more pertinent question in favor of calling me more names and making claims you cannot back up.
So, for the third time, here is the question you keep avoiding.
Gorgeous’ post:
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
You replied:
So, for the third time, you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
Considering your support of the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles, I suppose so.
You can keep posting tangents and moot claims, questions and demands, but the question stands as it appears that you seek to keep religious biased and bigotry alive.
Perhaps you misspoke again?
It was a genuine question that you answered genuinely. Thank you. I have no 'mill', whatever you are trying to paint that as! Those who think in terms of 'fuels for mills' do so for a reason.
So there was no need for you to attempt the back-track in a subsequent post, just as there is no need for you to keep trying to form an argument where none exists.
You prefer to think that destruction is positiive, that is your opinion and prerogative. I applaud the honesty, but it is neither science nor 'sensible'.
g.
That might be the answer you feel is correct, however telling everyone that god did it, and to look inside ourselves is no way to show this. It might be enough to convince you, but others have more difficult criteria. Also, the physical evidence doesn't make this clear. If you want to discover the answers about reality it would be a good idea to start looking in reality.
g.
So you did go with acting more juvenile than normal. “Dad2” is the best you can do?
Okay, since you obviously are ignorant of what your church has stated about homosexuals, as if you really are a member of the RC, here are a few stories to illustrate the bigotry and hatred from the RCC.
Link
QUOTE
Pope Benedict XVI, offering his first detailed critique of gay unions since his elevation to the pontificate six weeks ago, yesterday described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony."
In a speech to a conference on families held by the Diocese of Rome, Benedict made clear in strong language that he intends to pursue the hard-line defense of traditional Catholic teachings that made him controversial in his role as Pope John Paul II's chief enforcer of church doctrine.
In a speech to a conference on families held by the Diocese of Rome, Benedict made clear in strong language that he intends to pursue the hard-line defense of traditional Catholic teachings that made him controversial in his role as Pope John Paul II's chief enforcer of church doctrine.
Link
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pope Benedict XVI, offering his first detailed critique of gay unions since his elevation to the pontificate six weeks ago, yesterday described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony." In a speech to a conference on families held by the Diocese of Rome, Benedict made clear in strong language that he intends to pursue the hard-line defense of traditional Catholic teachings that made him controversial in his role as Pope John Paul II's chief enforcer of church doctrine. |
Link
Pope Benedict has condemned same-sex unions, calling them expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threaten the future of the family.
It is the Pope's first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election in April.
Again, both the Pope and the RCC seek to limit or interfere with personal freedoms based only upon sexual orientation. This is bigoted and biased.
QUOTE
Ah, it is so "common knowledge" that you cannot find unbiased support for it.
Unbiased as in your ridiculous calls for proof that you will accept is not rational nor reasonable. You demand a RC source and will ignore anything that cited a stance by the RCC and the pope that are bigoted, biased and simply hate filled.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ah, it is so "common knowledge" that you cannot find unbiased support for it. |
Unbiased as in your ridiculous calls for proof that you will accept is not rational nor reasonable. You demand a RC source and will ignore anything that cited a stance by the RCC and the pope that are bigoted, biased and simply hate filled.
Just shows how uncommon knowledge is.
No, just goes to show how obtuse you are in a debate and what ridiculous demands and actions you will take in order to try to defend your untenable claims.
QUOTE
HAHAHAH you never had a religion. You had a fantasy.
Partially correct, but not in the way you mean. Religion is fantasy, IMHO.
And again DB, you are a convert to the religion I eventually rejected. You can make all the nonsensical claims you like about how what I was taught about the RC is not longer true since I am no longer a follower, but such claims form you are simple irrational and illogical.
But even your claims of conversion are highly questionable considering you claimed to be a Baptist in your youth prior to becoming an atheist out of rage towards your parents and then your conversion to the RC faith. Odd how you once referred to yourself as a Protestant in your youth. I know of no Baptists that would label themselves as such.
Considering your inability to remember what you have posted and your inability to remember just who you are debating and what they actually stated, it appears more like your tall tale about your religious past is just that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAHAH you never had a religion. You had a fantasy. |
Partially correct, but not in the way you mean. Religion is fantasy, IMHO.
And again DB, you are a convert to the religion I eventually rejected. You can make all the nonsensical claims you like about how what I was taught about the RC is not longer true since I am no longer a follower, but such claims form you are simple irrational and illogical.
But even your claims of conversion are highly questionable considering you claimed to be a Baptist in your youth prior to becoming an atheist out of rage towards your parents and then your conversion to the RC faith. Odd how you once referred to yourself as a Protestant in your youth. I know of no Baptists that would label themselves as such.
Considering your inability to remember what you have posted and your inability to remember just who you are debating and what they actually stated, it appears more like your tall tale about your religious past is just that.
Can't do it huh?
Sure, but only an intentional ignorant or willfully blind person would demand such.
QUOTE
Shame that your deceit is revealed for all to see.
What deceit? You claim to be an RC in good standing yet do not know of the biased and bigoted stances that the RCC and Pope have taken.
I think the deceit is yours.
And again you have avoided answering the more pertinent question in favor of calling me more names and making claims you cannot back up.
So, for the third time, here is the question you keep avoiding.
Gorgeous’ post:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Shame that your deceit is revealed for all to see. |
What deceit? You claim to be an RC in good standing yet do not know of the biased and bigoted stances that the RCC and Pope have taken.
I think the deceit is yours.
And again you have avoided answering the more pertinent question in favor of calling me more names and making claims you cannot back up.
So, for the third time, here is the question you keep avoiding.
Gorgeous’ post:
This is why death of religious bias and bigotry is more sensible than its continuation.
You replied:
QUOTE
Oh yes, we must kill them for their own good.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
Because OUR bias and bigotry is much better (because it is not religious).
Careful, your fascism is showing.
So, for the third time, you would like to see the continuation of religious bias and bigotry?
Considering your support of the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles, I suppose so.
You can keep posting tangents and moot claims, questions and demands, but the question stands as it appears that you seek to keep religious biased and bigotry alive.
Perhaps you misspoke again?
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 26 2008, 04:02 AM)
YOU are the closet fascist deadbeat, and you are beginning to know it, which is why you are observedly fighting harder against it (yourself) now.
iseason,
Did you not think that all could see your post before?
The trouble is that others can see elements of ourselves that we personally fail to acknowledge.
Some people are obviously getting more distressed ~ deadbeat, for example ~ as their 'religion' goes down the pan, and they are forced to look at themselves and what they have become for the first time. In the traditional manner, they deny aspects of themselves by pretending others have the 'problem' that they are themselves suffering from. (Weapons of mass deception!)
'Religion' with all of its inherently self-destructive flaws simply has not worked for Humans. Thus, we need more balanced forms of philosophical thought to help us with our understandings. Deadbeat is worried that whatever comes next will be 'worse' than whatever catholicism has done for us, however, it is not a question of 'religions' but of People, and how they treat each other, regardless of whatever 'group names' they feel like calling themselves. Thus, his denial of his own inner-fascist merely perpetuates the rise of such things within our future societies. This is how 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
Let us not forget that the original question I asked iseason was whether he thought destruction was positive? The 'environment' is constantly changing, and we are also 'it'.
g.
and let's not forget that you only asked it for fuel for your mill. If I wanted to be dishonest about reality, I could draw fluffy clouds around your point of view and call it reality.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason,
Did you not think that all could see your post before?
The trouble is that others can see elements of ourselves that we personally fail to acknowledge.
Some people are obviously getting more distressed ~ deadbeat, for example ~ as their 'religion' goes down the pan, and they are forced to look at themselves and what they have become for the first time. In the traditional manner, they deny aspects of themselves by pretending others have the 'problem' that they are themselves suffering from. (Weapons of mass deception!)
'Religion' with all of its inherently self-destructive flaws simply has not worked for Humans. Thus, we need more balanced forms of philosophical thought to help us with our understandings. Deadbeat is worried that whatever comes next will be 'worse' than whatever catholicism has done for us, however, it is not a question of 'religions' but of People, and how they treat each other, regardless of whatever 'group names' they feel like calling themselves. Thus, his denial of his own inner-fascist merely perpetuates the rise of such things within our future societies. This is how 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
Let us not forget that the original question I asked iseason was whether he thought destruction was positive? The 'environment' is constantly changing, and we are also 'it'.
g.
and let's not forget that you only asked it for fuel for your mill. If I wanted to be dishonest about reality, I could draw fluffy clouds around your point of view and call it reality.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
and let's not forget that you only asked it for fuel for your mill.
It was a genuine question that you answered genuinely. Thank you. I have no 'mill', whatever you are trying to paint that as! Those who think in terms of 'fuels for mills' do so for a reason.
So there was no need for you to attempt the back-track in a subsequent post, just as there is no need for you to keep trying to form an argument where none exists.
You prefer to think that destruction is positiive, that is your opinion and prerogative. I applaud the honesty, but it is neither science nor 'sensible'.
g.
I don't undertand the purpose of this thread. This forum is clearly dominated by atheists and an atheist agenda, what does proving your numbers here show?
Theism is more sensible and the proof of this is everywhere. Just stop for a moment and look around at the flowers and the trees and ask yourself how all of these things arrived here. The answer is that God placed them here. If you look inside yourselves for the answer it will become clear.
Theism is more sensible and the proof of this is everywhere. Just stop for a moment and look around at the flowers and the trees and ask yourself how all of these things arrived here. The answer is that God placed them here. If you look inside yourselves for the answer it will become clear.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 08:30 PM)
I don't undertand the purpose of this thread. This forum is clearly dominated by atheists and an atheist agenda, what does proving your numbers here show?
Theism is more sensible and the proof of this is everywhere. Just stop for a moment and look around at the flowers and the trees and ask yourself how all of these things arrived here. The answer is that God placed them here. If you look inside yourselves for the answer it will become clear.
The only reason nobody's given ya negative feedback yet is because we're all wonderin if yer another sockpuppet. If ya are: shut up. Go away. It's old.
If not: Check out this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Theism is more sensible and the proof of this is everywhere. Just stop for a moment and look around at the flowers and the trees and ask yourself how all of these things arrived here. The answer is that God placed them here. If you look inside yourselves for the answer it will become clear.
The only reason nobody's given ya negative feedback yet is because we're all wonderin if yer another sockpuppet. If ya are: shut up. Go away. It's old.
If not: Check out this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
I don't view all science as being in conflict with religion and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.
Why do you assume that anyone, who takes a stance opposed to yours, must be a 'sock puppet'? There exists no shortage of differing viewpoints or people who bear them I assure you.
Why do you assume that anyone, who takes a stance opposed to yours, must be a 'sock puppet'? There exists no shortage of differing viewpoints or people who bear them I assure you.
QUOTE
Theism is more sensible and the proof of this is everywhere. Just stop for a moment and look around at the flowers and the trees and ask yourself how all of these things arrived here. The answer is that God placed them here. If you look inside yourselves for the answer it will become clear.
That might be the answer you feel is correct, however telling everyone that god did it, and to look inside ourselves is no way to show this. It might be enough to convince you, but others have more difficult criteria. Also, the physical evidence doesn't make this clear. If you want to discover the answers about reality it would be a good idea to start looking in reality.
QUOTE
If you want to discover the answers about reality it would be a good idea to start looking in reality.
g.
That is exactly where my ideas come from. I am saying that theism is more sensible because atheism is not a stance that can find support in reality. There is evidence of God's hand in the intricate designs of life, but there is no evidence of his absence. Do you really have a reason to doubt his existence? What about the collective unconscious?
proof please.
And I don't mean of a 'collective unconscious' but of why this is evidence of Gods hand? Whatever that means in reality, also why the need for faith at all if you can provide evidence (presuming you can)
And I don't mean of a 'collective unconscious' but of why this is evidence of Gods hand? Whatever that means in reality, also why the need for faith at all if you can provide evidence (presuming you can)
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+)
That is exactly where my ideas come from. I am saying that theism is more sensible because atheism is not a stance that can find support in reality.
You are operating on the assumption that God, the xian god, is a fact by default.
It is more rational and sensible to not belief in unsubstantiated claims such as a god until there is material proof for it.
Only if you view the world with religious blinders on.
By the way, which god’s hand? There are thousands to choose from.
And there is ample evidence of God’s absence. For a “God” who loves us, there is plenty of pain, suffering and evil.
Only if you view the world with religious blinders on.
By the way, which god’s hand? There are thousands to choose from.
And there is ample evidence of God’s absence. For a “God” who loves us, there is plenty of pain, suffering and evil.
Do you really have a reason to doubt his existence?
Do you really have reason to doubt the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny?
What about it? It that another form of mysticism you support?
Again, you assume God, the xian god, is fact with nothing for support other than the indoctrination your most likely received as a child.
Unless you also believe in Santa and the EB, then you are being inconsistent in your rejection of some myths and blind acceptance of others.
You are operating on the assumption that God, the xian god, is a fact by default.
It is more rational and sensible to not belief in unsubstantiated claims such as a god until there is material proof for it.
QUOTE
There is evidence of God's hand in the intricate designs of life, but there is no evidence of his absence.
Only if you view the world with religious blinders on.
By the way, which god’s hand? There are thousands to choose from.
And there is ample evidence of God’s absence. For a “God” who loves us, there is plenty of pain, suffering and evil.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is evidence of God's hand in the intricate designs of life, but there is no evidence of his absence. |
Only if you view the world with religious blinders on.
By the way, which god’s hand? There are thousands to choose from.
And there is ample evidence of God’s absence. For a “God” who loves us, there is plenty of pain, suffering and evil.
Do you really have a reason to doubt his existence?
Do you really have reason to doubt the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny?
QUOTE
What about the collective unconscious?
What about it? It that another form of mysticism you support?
Again, you assume God, the xian god, is fact with nothing for support other than the indoctrination your most likely received as a child.
Unless you also believe in Santa and the EB, then you are being inconsistent in your rejection of some myths and blind acceptance of others.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 05:52 PM)
That is exactly where my ideas come from. I am saying that theism is more sensible because atheism is not a stance that can find support in reality. There is evidence of God's hand in the intricate designs of life, but there is no evidence of his absence. Do you really have a reason to doubt his existence? What about the collective unconscious?
How is it more sensible to say God did it? Don't you then have to ask yourself where God came from? (I know I do.)
How is it more sensible to say God did it? Don't you then have to ask yourself where God came from? (I know I do.)
I don't have to ask myself where God came from. God has no beginning and God has no end, he always was and he always will be. Beginning and end are elements of the specific corner of reality that we inhabit, they have no bearing on God. It is mind boggling to think of things in such terms, but you have only to let go of your presuppositions and realize that in the big scheme of things there must be some beginningless entity in order for anything to exist (if everything has a beginning then nothing could have been there to jumpstart the original entity that rolled the ball on everything else). That beginningless/endless entity is called God.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 11:52 AM)
That is exactly where my ideas come from. I am saying that theism is more sensible because atheism is not a stance that can find support in reality. There is evidence of God's hand in the intricate designs of life, but there is no evidence of his absence. Do you really have a reason to doubt his existence? What about the collective unconscious?
Smacks of deadbeat.
g.
Smacks of deadbeat.
g.
Why insult me when I haven't insulted you?
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 07:01 PM)
I don't have to ask myself where God came from. God has no beginning and God has no end, he always was and he always will be. Beginning and end are elements of the specific corner of reality that we inhabit, they have no bearing on God. It is mind boggling to think of things in such terms, but you have only to let go of your presuppositions and realize that in the big scheme of things there must be some beginningless entity in order for anything to exist (if everything has a beginning then nothing could have been there to jumpstart the original entity that rolled the ball on everything else). That beginningless/endless entity is called God.
I call that entity the universe.
"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. World without end."
I call that entity the universe.
"As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. World without end."
Well, at least we agree that it exists.
That's a good start. 
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 01:07 PM)
Why insult me when I haven't insulted you?
Why is it an insult?
It is almost exactly the kind of 'argument' deadbeat has been trying to flog, and as part of his signature he mentions Carl Jung, who is responsible for a large part of our understanding of 'collective unconscious', which is what you have just mentioned. So, the phrase 'smacks of deadbeat' is justified.
Again, why is this an 'insult', when you seem to agree almost entirely with deadbeat?
g.
Why is it an insult?
It is almost exactly the kind of 'argument' deadbeat has been trying to flog, and as part of his signature he mentions Carl Jung, who is responsible for a large part of our understanding of 'collective unconscious', which is what you have just mentioned. So, the phrase 'smacks of deadbeat' is justified.
Again, why is this an 'insult', when you seem to agree almost entirely with deadbeat?
g.
I wasn't paying attention to your post, I interpreted it as you calling me a deadbeat.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 01:38 PM)
I wasn't paying attention to your post, I interpreted it as you calling me a deadbeat.
So how do you expect people to believe that you pay attention to anything else? Like Reality, for example?
Do you often throw accusations at people that are actually due to your own lack of attention?
g.
So how do you expect people to believe that you pay attention to anything else? Like Reality, for example?
Do you often throw accusations at people that are actually due to your own lack of attention?
g.
No I don't. Do you often refuse to discuss issues and derail discussions by making needless comparisons and accusations?
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 01:45 PM)
Your post smacks of misplaced aggression. If you need counseling I know a guy.
No apology, then?
No apology, then?
QUOTE (after edit+)
No I don't. Do you often refuse to discuss issues and derail discussions by making needless comparisons and accusations?
Still no apology, then?
g.
Still no apology, then?
g.
I decided that my original post was unmerited and unfair so I edited it.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 01:48 PM)
I decided that my original post was unmerited and unfair so I edited it.
Well done, deadbeat!
g.
Well done, deadbeat!
g.
So we established that you didn't insult me the first time around only to have you insult me now? I don't understand what you are going for here.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 01:55 PM)
So we established that you didn't insult me the first time around only to have you insult me now? I don't understand what you are going for here.
You insult yourself, and the intelligence of people who post here. If I am 'going' for anything, it may be an answer to this...
So how do you expect people to believe that you pay attention to anything else?
Attention is the pre-requisite to understanding anything. You come here declaring 'God did it' on a physics forum, and then admit to not paying attention!
What is it that YOU are 'going for'?
g.
You insult yourself, and the intelligence of people who post here. If I am 'going' for anything, it may be an answer to this...
So how do you expect people to believe that you pay attention to anything else?
Attention is the pre-requisite to understanding anything. You come here declaring 'God did it' on a physics forum, and then admit to not paying attention!
What is it that YOU are 'going for'?
g.
Your post said "Smacks of deadbeat". I don't think that merits much attention and I don't think that it is an acceptable post since you were so kind to point out that this is a physics forum. You are a hypocrite and you are trying to demonize me over a very simple exchange. Why are you trying to advance the idea that my failure to pay attention to your worthless, combative post has anything to do with my general attentiveness or my general understanding of science?
Bringer-of-Light,
Gorgeous thinks a lot of herself
Gorgeous thinks a lot of herself
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 02:24 PM)
Your post said "Smacks of deadbeat". I don't think that merits much attention and I don't think that it is an acceptable post since you were so kind to point out that this is a physics forum. You are a hypocrite and you are trying to demonize me over a very simple exchange. Why are you trying to advance the idea that my failure to pay attention to your worthless, combative post has anything to do with my general attentiveness or my general understanding of science?
Perhaps the fact that you are in a physics forum trying to convince people that 'God did it' may have something to do with it?
The fact that you are trying to convince people that Evolution is not real might have something to do with it?
Same old tired drivel from the same old tired deadbeat.
I think an awful lot of Reality and its necessary truths, but sadly very little of people who just want to hide from this and retreat into a world of fantasy and self-destruction. They don't seem to care who or what else they take with them into 'armageddon', despite preaching about 'morals'.
g.
Perhaps the fact that you are in a physics forum trying to convince people that 'God did it' may have something to do with it?
The fact that you are trying to convince people that Evolution is not real might have something to do with it?
Same old tired drivel from the same old tired deadbeat.
QUOTE
pnelson419 Posted on Today at 2:27 PM
Bringer-of-Light,
Gorgeous thinks a lot of herself
Bringer-of-Light,
Gorgeous thinks a lot of herself
I think an awful lot of Reality and its necessary truths, but sadly very little of people who just want to hide from this and retreat into a world of fantasy and self-destruction. They don't seem to care who or what else they take with them into 'armageddon', despite preaching about 'morals'.
g.
So you continue to engage in name calling and state that you disagree with me instead of citing your reasons for disagreement.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 02:43 PM)
So you continue to engage in name calling and state that you disagree with me instead of citing your reasons for disagreement.
Same old deadbeat, and now not even bothering to deny it!
Still pretending that half of my post doesn't exist though...
I think an awful lot of Reality and its necessary truths, but sadly very little of people who just want to hide from this and retreat into a world of fantasy and self-destruction. They don't seem to care who or what else they take with them into 'armageddon', despite preaching about 'morals'.
g.
Same old deadbeat, and now not even bothering to deny it!
Still pretending that half of my post doesn't exist though...
I think an awful lot of Reality and its necessary truths, but sadly very little of people who just want to hide from this and retreat into a world of fantasy and self-destruction. They don't seem to care who or what else they take with them into 'armageddon', despite preaching about 'morals'.
g.
I suppose by continuing to call me a deadbeat you are insinuating that I am also the poster here of the same name? I see no reason to dignify that with a denial. Why is it hard for you to accept that your opinion is not the only one? Why do you feel the need to theorize that the people who disagree with you are manifestations of the same person?
I did read the second portion of your post I just don't know why you expect me to address it. I could just as easily have made that statement about you, it has no bearing on me.
I did read the second portion of your post I just don't know why you expect me to address it. I could just as easily have made that statement about you, it has no bearing on me.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 03:03 PM)
I suppose by continuing to call me a deadbeat you are insinuating that I am also the poster here of the same name? I see no reason to dignify that with a denial.
I should have just let you carry on really. But I am nice, and like to help people with their errors.
Now please state where I have mentioned or even insinuated that I think my opinion is the only one.
Now please state where I have mentioned or even insinuated that I think my opinion is the only one.
Why do you feel the need to theorize that the people who disagree with you are manifestations of the same person?
Originally, my quote was 'smacks of...' not 'is', but with every post you become more deadbeat-like. However, I am prepared to accept that The Doc may be in a better position to me in this regard, in which case, you would be Dad1. It is possible; the line is very slim.
It applies where it applies, and that is to all people from time to time, which I fully acknowledge, otherwise I could not proclaim its truth. Denial, dear god-fearer, is the wrong answer.
g.
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum by taking part in civil discussion and showing that science and religion are not at war with each other.
How can you bring Jesus?
Do you have Jesus?
You need to let him go.
Science and religion aren't in conflict.
Religion is typically in conflict with Sensibility, Facts, Common Sense, and Reality
Science attempts to falsify its' hypotheses, have you tried to falsify your god?
Because your one true "God" is an evil prick
Why are you so afraid of being without a puppet master?
g.
I should have just let you carry on really. But I am nice, and like to help people with their errors. QUOTE
Why is it hard for you to accept that your opinion is not the only one?
Now please state where I have mentioned or even insinuated that I think my opinion is the only one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why is it hard for you to accept that your opinion is not the only one? |
Now please state where I have mentioned or even insinuated that I think my opinion is the only one.
Why do you feel the need to theorize that the people who disagree with you are manifestations of the same person?
Originally, my quote was 'smacks of...' not 'is', but with every post you become more deadbeat-like. However, I am prepared to accept that The Doc may be in a better position to me in this regard, in which case, you would be Dad1. It is possible; the line is very slim.
QUOTE
I did read the second portion of your post I just don't know why you expect me to address it. I could just as easily have made that statement about you, it has no bearing on me.
It applies where it applies, and that is to all people from time to time, which I fully acknowledge, otherwise I could not proclaim its truth. Denial, dear god-fearer, is the wrong answer.
g.
I agree with your last statement though I see no reason to throw in 'god-fearer' rather than using my handle. It is slightly humerous that I have been on this forum for only one day and already you seem to have a personal problem with me.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 09:26 PM)
It is slightly humerous that I have been on this forum for only one day and already you seem to have a personal problem with me.
You think way too highly of yourself, your bible thumping is hardly unique, and many of the veteran posters on the board are annoyed by dealing with the ignorance.
You think way too highly of yourself, your bible thumping is hardly unique, and many of the veteran posters on the board are annoyed by dealing with the ignorance.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 03:26 PM)
I agree with your last statement though I see no reason to throw in 'god-fearer' rather than using my handle. It is slightly humerous that I have been on this forum for only one day and already you seem to have a personal problem with me.
I will not be using your handle, as you have displayed already a serious trait of a hypocritical nature, and 'light' seems to be the very last thing you came here to bring.
Also, I do not have 'personal' problems with people. People may change whenever they choose to; leave all the falsity and error behind, all the pretence about 'bringing light' when all they bring is more of the same old hypocrisy; you know the sort of thing.
g.
I will not be using your handle, as you have displayed already a serious trait of a hypocritical nature, and 'light' seems to be the very last thing you came here to bring.
Also, I do not have 'personal' problems with people. People may change whenever they choose to; leave all the falsity and error behind, all the pretence about 'bringing light' when all they bring is more of the same old hypocrisy; you know the sort of thing.
g.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum by taking part in civil discussion and showing that science and religion are not at war with each other.
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum by taking part in civil discussion and showing that science and religion are not at war with each other.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 09:36 PM)
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum
cannot belong in the same sentence as "civil discussion"
Science doesn't want nor does it need Jesus, unlike you science is not afraid to say "we don't know yet" instead of saying GODDIDIT.
Creationism is not science. Intelligent design is not science.
cannot belong in the same sentence as "civil discussion"
Science doesn't want nor does it need Jesus, unlike you science is not afraid to say "we don't know yet" instead of saying GODDIDIT.
Creationism is not science. Intelligent design is not science.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 03:36 PM)
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum by taking part in civil discussion and showing that science and religion are not at war with each other.
Oh goody! May I introduce you to a thread you will just love?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365
Have fun!
g.
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum by taking part in civil discussion and showing that science and religion are not at war with each other.
Oh goody! May I introduce you to a thread you will just love?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6365
Have fun!
g.
QUOTE
I am trying to bring Jesus to the faithless that I see here in this forum by taking part in civil discussion and showing that science and religion are not at war with each other.
How can you bring Jesus?
Do you have Jesus?
You need to let him go.
Science and religion aren't in conflict.
Religion is typically in conflict with Sensibility, Facts, Common Sense, and Reality
Why do you have such a negative view of religion? It is part of reality not in conflict with it. Yes I have Jesus in the figurative sense, and I can bring him by showing that he is not in opposition to science.
Religion is only in opposition to the brand of science that people try to fashion into deus ex machina.
Religion is only in opposition to the brand of science that people try to fashion into deus ex machina.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 10:13 PM)
to fashion into deus ex machina.
Do you even know what deus ex machina means? And how it applies much more readily to religion?
Do you even know what deus ex machina means? And how it applies much more readily to religion?
Why?
Lets take your religion...Christianity
The bible isn't based on any particular work, but rather is the result of centuries of unsupervised edits and changes. The popular version is the one used today, not the accurate one.
It even includes two very divergent viewpoint, Gospels and Paul.
They both make very different points and have different opinions.
If I was more sober, this would all be longer and more detailed
Lets take your religion...Christianity
The bible isn't based on any particular work, but rather is the result of centuries of unsupervised edits and changes. The popular version is the one used today, not the accurate one.
It even includes two very divergent viewpoint, Gospels and Paul.
They both make very different points and have different opinions.
If I was more sober, this would all be longer and more detailed
QUOTE
...and I can bring him by showing that he is not in opposition to science.
Science attempts to falsify its' hypotheses, have you tried to falsify your god?
You think it more readily applies to religion than science? Technology is the new god and it is devouring the world. Man made it so that he could worship it and the cycle defies reality.
Puck, sure the Bible changed but I believe that there was a divine hand guiding the changes. The version we have today may not be the original version but it is certainly the accurate one. The Bible is how it was meant to be.
Puck, sure the Bible changed but I believe that there was a divine hand guiding the changes. The version we have today may not be the original version but it is certainly the accurate one. The Bible is how it was meant to be.
Wait...what?
The new version of the bible isn't the original but it is accurate?
So...just a big "*** You" to all of the people who were Christians in the first couple of centuries?
PS...Puck is Drunk
The new version of the bible isn't the original but it is accurate?
So...just a big "*** You" to all of the people who were Christians in the first couple of centuries?
PS...Puck is Drunk
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 10:23 PM)
You think it more readily applies to religion than science? Technology is the new god and it is devouring the world. Man made it so that he could worship it and the cycle defies reality.
It boggles the mind sometimes how moronic people can be. Why would you start spouting something your preacher said last sunday without even bothering to look up what it means?
Look up the definition of deus ex machina. Explain to the rest of us how saying "God created it in seven days" doesn't fit into the definition perfectly.
It boggles the mind sometimes how moronic people can be. Why would you start spouting something your preacher said last sunday without even bothering to look up what it means?
Look up the definition of deus ex machina. Explain to the rest of us how saying "God created it in seven days" doesn't fit into the definition perfectly.
"god out of a machine" = deus ex machina
You have made a new god from technology. A new all powerful machine which you seek to force into scientific doctrine. Atheism is a contradiction so long as the 'technological god' idea permeates the atheist community. Advancement is a good thing but it is not to be worshipped.
Why are you so afraid of the one true God that you have to make a replacement?
You have made a new god from technology. A new all powerful machine which you seek to force into scientific doctrine. Atheism is a contradiction so long as the 'technological god' idea permeates the atheist community. Advancement is a good thing but it is not to be worshipped.
Why are you so afraid of the one true God that you have to make a replacement?
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 10:31 PM)
Why are you so afraid of the one true God that you have to make a replacement?
Why do you need a fairy tale for comfort? Why are you so afraid of the unknown? Why are you so afraid of death that you need to create a tale of an afterlife?
You still haven't read the definition of deus ex machina.
Why do you need a fairy tale for comfort? Why are you so afraid of the unknown? Why are you so afraid of death that you need to create a tale of an afterlife?
You still haven't read the definition of deus ex machina.
QUOTE
Why are you so afraid of the one true God that you have to make a replacement?
Because your one true "God" is an evil prick
Yes I did. It translates to "god out of a machine".
There is nothing evil about my faith Puck, I think you have me confused with someone else.
There is nothing evil about my faith Puck, I think you have me confused with someone else.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 10:40 PM)
Yes I did. It translates to "god out of a machine".
Translation is not a definition you idiot.
Translation is not a definition you idiot.
Your God once killed thousands of people cause he didn't like them.
Another time he killed everyone on Earth because they pissed him off
Lets think, a son made fun of his drunk Dad and God messed him up
The Bible encourages slavery, oppression of women, and hatred of other cultures.
Another time he killed everyone on Earth because they pissed him off
Lets think, a son made fun of his drunk Dad and God messed him up
The Bible encourages slavery, oppression of women, and hatred of other cultures.
I think the definition is pretty clear once it is translated. Why don't you just save us some babbling and tell me the definition that you would like to apply to it.
QUOTE
Why are you so afraid of the one true God that you have to make a replacement?
Why are you so afraid of being without a puppet master?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Why are you so afraid of being without a puppet master?
Gorgeous: There a quite a few "puppet masters"(although the puppets may indeed be instructing the puppeteers) presently posting on this forum through sock puppet accounts:
BigDumbWeirdo = MjolnirPants
fivedoughnut = Jeremy Fisher, Dr. Fred A Wolf and most likely Delia
Alpha = <Max> and Evans
What do you suppose that these individuals are "afraid of"?
P.S. Something about "Bringer-of-Light" just doesn't seem right...
Gorgeous: There a quite a few "puppet masters"(although the puppets may indeed be instructing the puppeteers) presently posting on this forum through sock puppet accounts:
BigDumbWeirdo = MjolnirPants
fivedoughnut = Jeremy Fisher, Dr. Fred A Wolf and most likely Delia
Alpha = <Max> and Evans
What do you suppose that these individuals are "afraid of"?
P.S. Something about "Bringer-of-Light" just doesn't seem right...
Why is this forum so clannish and closed minded? I come here with a viewpoint that differs from the dogma of this forum and I am called deadbeat, a puppet master, and now this 'newguy' says that I'm not quite right. What a welcoming place.
Bringer-of-Light: I have but one simple question for you:
Have you ever posted on this forum before under another username?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Thank you.
Have you ever posted on this forum before under another username?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Thank you.
I have viewed this forum as a guest if that's what you are talking about. I decided to make an account to try and have a calm and sensible debate about religion and science being able to coexist and provide aid to each other but that is clearly not something that the members of this forum want to hear. I can't even begin to discuss these issues without being personally attacked on unknown and unstated grounds. Why is that? Why is difference of opinion attacked rather than discussed?
Sighs deeply...
Let's try this again...
Bringer-of-Light: I have but one SIMPLE question for you:
HAVE YOU EVER POSTED ON THIS FORUM BEFORE UNDER ANOTHER USERNAME?
A SIMPLE "YES" OR "NO" WILL SUFFICE.
Thank you.
No more beating around the bush...please HONESTLY answer the question.
Let's try this again...
Bringer-of-Light: I have but one SIMPLE question for you:
HAVE YOU EVER POSTED ON THIS FORUM BEFORE UNDER ANOTHER USERNAME?
A SIMPLE "YES" OR "NO" WILL SUFFICE.
Thank you.
No more beating around the bush...please HONESTLY answer the question.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 25 2008, 10:43 PM)
I think the definition is pretty clear once it is translated. Why don't you just save us some babbling and tell me the definition that you would like to apply to it.
Using google really isn't that difficult, emphasis mine.
DEUS EX MACHINA (from Greek theos apo mechanes): An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonists or resolve the story's conflict. The term means "The god out of the machine," and it refers to stage machinery. A classical Greek actor, portraying one of the Greek gods in a play, might be lowered out of the sky onto the stage and then use his divine powers to solve all the mortals' problems. The term is a negative one, and it often implies a lack of skill on the part of the writer. In a modern example of deus ex machina, a writer might reach a climactic moment in which a band of pioneers were attacked by bandits. A cavalry brigade's unexpected arrival to drive away the marauding bandits at the conclusion, with no previous hint of the cavalry's existence, would be a deus ex machina conclusion. Such endings mean that heroes are unable to solve their own problems in a pleasing manner, and they must be "rescued" by the writer himself through improbable means. In some genres, the deus ex machina ending is actually a positive and expected trait. In various vitae, or Saint's Lives, divine intervention is one of the normal climactic moments of the narrative to bring about the rescue of a saint or to cause a mass conversion among conventional pagan characters. See vita.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_D.html
Lets see..."We don't understand where we came from" solution? "GODDIDIT!!"
Using google really isn't that difficult, emphasis mine.
DEUS EX MACHINA (from Greek theos apo mechanes): An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonists or resolve the story's conflict. The term means "The god out of the machine," and it refers to stage machinery. A classical Greek actor, portraying one of the Greek gods in a play, might be lowered out of the sky onto the stage and then use his divine powers to solve all the mortals' problems. The term is a negative one, and it often implies a lack of skill on the part of the writer. In a modern example of deus ex machina, a writer might reach a climactic moment in which a band of pioneers were attacked by bandits. A cavalry brigade's unexpected arrival to drive away the marauding bandits at the conclusion, with no previous hint of the cavalry's existence, would be a deus ex machina conclusion. Such endings mean that heroes are unable to solve their own problems in a pleasing manner, and they must be "rescued" by the writer himself through improbable means. In some genres, the deus ex machina ending is actually a positive and expected trait. In various vitae, or Saint's Lives, divine intervention is one of the normal climactic moments of the narrative to bring about the rescue of a saint or to cause a mass conversion among conventional pagan characters. See vita.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_D.html
Lets see..."We don't understand where we came from" solution? "GODDIDIT!!"
I just told you no. Why are you repeating the question? Why didn't you address any of the things that I said in my post?
QUOTE (newguy+Jun 25 2008, 11:07 PM)
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Why are you so afraid of being without a puppet master?
Gorgeous: There a quite a few "puppet masters"(although the puppets may indeed be instructing the puppeteers) presently posting on this forum through sock puppet accounts:
BigDumbWeirdo = MjolnirPants
fivedoughnut = Jeremy Fisher, Dr. Fred A Wolf and most likely Delia
Alpha = <Max> and Evans
What do you suppose that these individuals are "afraid of"?
P.S. Something about "Bringer-of-Light" just doesn't seem right...
This is not news, newguy.
So you have been duped. So have I, and so has everyone in some form or another. You're not going to tell me your real name is 'newguy' are you? So, there you have it, we are all using a pseudonym at some stage. Some just enjoy taking it many stages further, that is all. Perhaps it is your own expectations of something more 'serious' that let you down? ~ For my own part, I am truly grateful when meaningful communication is possible, but until then why not just sit back, relax, and enjoy ourselves? All abuse is self-abuse.
And this does not mean that I condone all of the actions of the individuals, but sometimes I do get a good laugh out of it. When reasonable conversation breaks down, that is about all we can do, except get angry and contribute further to the misery of the current Human 'state'. We do not have to be so 'prudish', I think.
'God' is not a word that can ever be agreed upon because it can only be tested from an individual point of view. Thus, it will always be a word that creates divisions between people. Is continued division between people 'sensible'? If you want to connect with 'god', better to go sit in a field and chant, I think, but if you want to connect with people you have to find a language that all people find agreeable, in the first instance. This is why 'Truth is more correct than god'. Most people tend to find some form of Humour agreeable. What a pity christianity passed that one by!
I find Hinduism is quite agreeable, being that it has as many levels to it as there are individual people, as 'deep' or as superficial as we can all be, at times, and thus it allows for people to BE people, 'rough' and 'smooth' alike. There is also such a thing as 'Laughter yoga'... How ingenious! I like to think that any 'god' would not object to a little laughter. I find it a form of 'pantheism' difficult to object to.
I agree, there is something 'fishy' about bringer-of-shight.
If he had been 'viewing' for any length of time, he would know exactly what to expect from his...'postings'.
g.
Gorgeous: There a quite a few "puppet masters"(although the puppets may indeed be instructing the puppeteers) presently posting on this forum through sock puppet accounts:
BigDumbWeirdo = MjolnirPants
fivedoughnut = Jeremy Fisher, Dr. Fred A Wolf and most likely Delia
Alpha = <Max> and Evans
What do you suppose that these individuals are "afraid of"?
P.S. Something about "Bringer-of-Light" just doesn't seem right...
This is not news, newguy.
So you have been duped. So have I, and so has everyone in some form or another. You're not going to tell me your real name is 'newguy' are you? So, there you have it, we are all using a pseudonym at some stage. Some just enjoy taking it many stages further, that is all. Perhaps it is your own expectations of something more 'serious' that let you down? ~ For my own part, I am truly grateful when meaningful communication is possible, but until then why not just sit back, relax, and enjoy ourselves? All abuse is self-abuse.
And this does not mean that I condone all of the actions of the individuals, but sometimes I do get a good laugh out of it. When reasonable conversation breaks down, that is about all we can do, except get angry and contribute further to the misery of the current Human 'state'. We do not have to be so 'prudish', I think.
'God' is not a word that can ever be agreed upon because it can only be tested from an individual point of view. Thus, it will always be a word that creates divisions between people. Is continued division between people 'sensible'? If you want to connect with 'god', better to go sit in a field and chant, I think, but if you want to connect with people you have to find a language that all people find agreeable, in the first instance. This is why 'Truth is more correct than god'. Most people tend to find some form of Humour agreeable. What a pity christianity passed that one by!
I find Hinduism is quite agreeable, being that it has as many levels to it as there are individual people, as 'deep' or as superficial as we can all be, at times, and thus it allows for people to BE people, 'rough' and 'smooth' alike. There is also such a thing as 'Laughter yoga'... How ingenious! I like to think that any 'god' would not object to a little laughter. I find it a form of 'pantheism' difficult to object to.
I agree, there is something 'fishy' about bringer-of-shight.
If he had been 'viewing' for any length of time, he would know exactly what to expect from his...'postings'.g.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+)
I just told you no. Why are you repeating the question?
Bringer-of-Light: No, you didn't. You gave me a roundabout answer that greatly reminds me of a previous poster on this forum. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since you just answered "no" to my question.
Bringer-of-Light: No, you didn't. You gave me a roundabout answer that greatly reminds me of a previous poster on this forum. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since you just answered "no" to my question.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+)
Why didn't you address any of the things that I said in my post?
I'll do so now.
I'll do so now.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+)
I decided to make an account to try and have a calm and sensible debate about religion and science being able to coexist and provide aid to each other but that is clearly not something that the members of this forum want to hear. I can't even begin to discuss these issues without being personally attacked on unknown and unstated grounds. Why is that? Why is difference of opinion attacked rather than discussed?
You said that you've viewed this forum for a while before registering...you ought to be able to answer you own question. I'll be happy to discuss things with you...depending on what topics you address. I am on vacation, though...I'm heading out shortly for the day. Take care.
You said that you've viewed this forum for a while before registering...you ought to be able to answer you own question. I'll be happy to discuss things with you...depending on what topics you address. I am on vacation, though...I'm heading out shortly for the day. Take care.
So you support Hinduism? Are you a fan of rigid and inescapable caste systems? As far as knowing what to expect from my postings goes, I expected to be treated as well as I treated you. I am not going to start playing in the dirt and I thought that might keep things on a higher level.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 26 2008, 05:49 AM)
I am not going to start playing in the dirt and I thought that might keep things on a higher level.
By repeatedly telling us that we need to "find Jesus"
By repeatedly telling us that we need to "find Jesus"
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
This is not news, newguy.
Gorgeous: It recently was to quite a number of people on this forum. Not that I got any "thanks" for "outting" them...
Gorgeous: It recently was to quite a number of people on this forum. Not that I got any "thanks" for "outting" them...
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
So you have been duped.
No, I haven't been "duped".
No, I haven't been "duped".
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
You're not going to tell me your real name is 'newguy' are you?
No, I'm not. My real name is Tom, as I've readily admitted in the past. "Newguy" is merely reflective of the fact that, at the time that I registered, I was a "newguy" to this forum.
No, I'm not. My real name is Tom, as I've readily admitted in the past. "Newguy" is merely reflective of the fact that, at the time that I registered, I was a "newguy" to this forum.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
So, there you have it, we are all using a pseudonym at some stage. Some just enjoy taking it many stages further, that is all. Perhaps it is your own expectations of something more 'serious' that let you down?
I can't honestly say that I've been "let down" as I only have respect for a few of the posters here anyway(other than the general respect that I would afford to all men/women). I just prefer to know who I am speaking with, for the sake of honesty.
I can't honestly say that I've been "let down" as I only have respect for a few of the posters here anyway(other than the general respect that I would afford to all men/women). I just prefer to know who I am speaking with, for the sake of honesty.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
And this does not mean that I condone all of the actions of the individuals, but sometimes I do get a good laugh out of it. When reasonable conversation breaks down, that is about all we can do, except get angry and contribute further to the misery of the current Human 'state'. We do not have to be so 'prudish', I think.
I'm glad that you don't necessarily condone it. As far as laughter is concerned, I trust that I've shown myself to have a fairly good sense of humor...I just don't like "masks"...
We would probably all prefer that, but sadly this world no longer operates in such a fashion. I can see where the longing for older and more trust-worthy times comes from, but it is not the reality we have to exist within currently.
We would probably all prefer that, but sadly this world no longer operates in such a fashion. I can see where the longing for older and more trust-worthy times comes from, but it is not the reality we have to exist within currently.
I'm glad that you don't necessarily condone it. As far as laughter is concerned, I trust that I've shown myself to have a fairly good sense of humor...I just don't like "masks"...
You have, and yes, I understand.
I know, but these things are subjective. In the same way, we all know 'love' in various 'disguises'.
I know, but these things are subjective. In the same way, we all know 'love' in various 'disguises'.
Anyhow, it's the last day of my vacation and my children will be up shortly. Take care.
Have fun with your kids, Tom. That is far more important than arguing here. I will be doing the same in a short while.
g.
I'm glad that you don't necessarily condone it. As far as laughter is concerned, I trust that I've shown myself to have a fairly good sense of humor...I just don't like "masks"...
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
'God' is not a word that can ever be agreed upon because it can only be tested from an individual point of view. Thus, it will always be a word that creates divisions between people. Is continued division between people 'sensible'? If you want to connect with 'god', better to go sit in a field and chant, I think, but if you want to connect with people you have to find a language that all people find agreeable, in the first instance. This is why 'Truth is more correct than god'. Most people tend to find some form of Humour agreeable. What a pity christianity passed that one by!
There's a fair amount of truth in there. Once again, it's not "humor" that I'm opposed to...it's DECEPTION.
Anyhow, it's the last day of my vacation and my children will be up shortly. Take care.
There's a fair amount of truth in there. Once again, it's not "humor" that I'm opposed to...it's DECEPTION.
Anyhow, it's the last day of my vacation and my children will be up shortly. Take care.
QUOTE
I can't honestly say that I've been "let down" as I only have respect for a few of the posters here anyway(other than the general respect that I would afford to all men/women). I just prefer to know who I am speaking with, for the sake of honesty.
We would probably all prefer that, but sadly this world no longer operates in such a fashion. I can see where the longing for older and more trust-worthy times comes from, but it is not the reality we have to exist within currently.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can't honestly say that I've been "let down" as I only have respect for a few of the posters here anyway(other than the general respect that I would afford to all men/women). I just prefer to know who I am speaking with, for the sake of honesty. |
We would probably all prefer that, but sadly this world no longer operates in such a fashion. I can see where the longing for older and more trust-worthy times comes from, but it is not the reality we have to exist within currently.
I'm glad that you don't necessarily condone it. As far as laughter is concerned, I trust that I've shown myself to have a fairly good sense of humor...I just don't like "masks"...
You have, and yes, I understand.
QUOTE
There's a fair amount of truth in there. Once again, it's not "humor" that I'm opposed to...it's DECEPTION.
I know, but these things are subjective. In the same way, we all know 'love' in various 'disguises'.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There's a fair amount of truth in there. Once again, it's not "humor" that I'm opposed to...it's DECEPTION. |
I know, but these things are subjective. In the same way, we all know 'love' in various 'disguises'.
Anyhow, it's the last day of my vacation and my children will be up shortly. Take care.
Have fun with your kids, Tom. That is far more important than arguing here. I will be doing the same in a short while.
g.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.