Everyone has to make decisions as to what they believe without 100% confidence. Are you saying that in matters where you are not 100% confident you are simply 'undecided'? There are plenty of things that I am undecided on, but for the most part I have looked at the probabilities and come to a conclusion. Otherwise, what's the point if you never come to a conclusion? Of course you leave yourself open to change your mind...but somehow I don't think you understood what I was saying...oh well.
Atheist..Please stand up
- Thread starter Lady
- Start date
James R,
** Not everybody believes people&monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, or a fetus should be used for stem-cell research, however,science adhere to a individuals opinion or faith? Amongst many disputs in the scientific arena ,theories change, likewise the human. Whyever, branches halted, particulary, the space age?If not from fear, should the process of devolution set in more visibly?
THEN YOU MUST BE A SAINT FRENCH TO THINK IT FEELS GOOD TO SELL ALL U HAVE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR, GE GENEROUS, LOVING EVEN IF THE GUY HITS YOU, AND BE FORGIVING, KIND, HARDWORKING, HUMILITY, CHASTITY, SELF-CONTROL, PATIENT. IF YOU THINK THIS FEELS GOOD, THEN YOUR WAY BETTER PERSON THAN ME AND MANY OTHER PEEPS I KNOW BECAUSE EVEN US HAVE A HARD TIME FOLLOWING THE VIRTUES, BUT YOU ARE SAINTLY! AND YOUR NOT LYING, ARE YOU? LOL...AND ONE MORE THING, IF VIRTUES FEELS GOOD TO YOU. HOW THEN DOES IT FEEL LIKE TO DO THE OPPOSITE WHICH IS TO GIVE REVENGE, BE CARELESS, PRIDEFULL, BE GREEDY AND ACCUMULATE FOR YOURSELF, BE LUSTFULL, BE LAZY THEN THIS MUST BE A LOT OF SUFFERING HUH? LOL, ARE UOU OK FRENCH?
THAT IS LIKE SAYING "HOW DO I KNOW THE FORE-FATHERS WERE GAY BUT DENIED IT IN PUBLIC TO GET MORE VOTES", OR "HOW DO I KNOW THEY ARE NOT ATHEIST BUT DENIED IT TO GET MORE VOTES", OR "HOW DO I KNOW THERE WERE OTHER PHILOSOPHERS THAT TEACHES WHAT JESUS TAUGHT EXCEPT IT WASNT WRITTEN AND THERE IS NO PROOF OF IT".
FRENCH ALL THAT CAN BE SUMMARIZED INTO...."GIVE ME PROOF OF CLAIM OR SHUT YOUR HOLE, YOU THINK, THIS AND THAT AND ASSUME THIS AND THAT, BUT UNLIKE US CHRISTIANS, YOU GIVE NO PROOF OF CLAIM, YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF YUR CLAIM THAT GOD IS A MYTH AND A FAIRY TAILE (MOST ATHEIST CLAIM, THOUGH SIME DENIES IT)".
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF FRENCH....YOU TRIED SO HARD BUT YOUR WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS OPINIONS AND CLAIMS WITH NO SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE, YOU NEED TO GIVE IT UP KID...HUMBLE YOURSELF DOWN AND STOP BEING PRIDEFULL, SERIOUSLY...
Re: jjhlk's thoughts
Yes atheist, they SUDDENLY CAME INTO BEING BY SUPER DUPER LUCK, or as you like to call it "chance", NOW THAT YOU MADE A CLAIM OF CHANCE, PROVE ITS POSSIBILITY, and SINCE U CANT, SHUT YOUR HOLE, AND DONT EVEN TELL ME ABOUT FUTURE POSSIBILITY (PSYCHIC PHENOMENON), I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR WISHFULL THINKING, ARGUMENT IS CURRENT, THEREFORE PRESENT EVIDENCE NOW, IF WE ARGUE IN FUTURE, PRESENT EVIDENCE IN FUTURE OK KID?
SUPER DUPER LUCK? AGAIN, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU,UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR HOLE. YOUR RIGHT, IT ISNT HARD TO IMAGINE HOW AN ATOM CAN MAGICLY BECOME HUMANS IN MILLIONS OF YEARS JUST AS IT IS NOT HARD TO IMAGINE A GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY CREATED YOU AND YOUR MAMA. IMAGINATION IS ENTERTAINING ISNT IT...
GOD DOESNT MAKE MISTAKES, YOUR JUDGMENT HOWEVER IS A MISTAKE. IF THE BIBLE IS POORLY WRITTEN AND IT CONTAINS ALL THE MORAL DOCTRINE AND VIRTUES, WHAT THEN DO YOU CALL "SUPER COINCIDENCE", OR "EXTRA-SUPER LUCK"? IF THATS NOT POORLY WRITTEN, THEN I DONT KNOW WHAT IS.
IF YOU THINK A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS EVIDENT IS A "THEORY", THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL "CHANCE" OR "LUCK" WHICH HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL? LOL...
LOL, IF THE MECHANISMS GIVES YOU LIFE BY RUNNING SMOOTHLY (U MUST BE ON SOMETHING DUDE), THEN SHOULDNT THAT SO-CALLED MECHANICS BE CALLED "LIFE GIVING FORCE"? LOL...BETTER YET WHY DONT YOU CALL THE "MECHANICS" A "CHUPACABRA RUNNING SMOOTHLY", WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SPELLING? AFTER ALL, BOTH OF THEM HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MIGHT AS WELL CAL IT "MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE RUNNING SMOOTHLY" OR "POWERPUFF GIRLS RUNNING SMOOTHLY GAVE US LIFE"...PHYSICS INDEED IS QUITE COMPLEX, BUT TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE ISNT, GIVE EVIDENCE OR SHUT YOUR HOLE OK...YOU CANT CREATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVENT BEEN CREATED AND YOU CALL THAT LOGIC? BECAUSE A COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE FACTORY CAN CREATE ANOTHER COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, THEN DOES IT MEAN THE FACTORY EXISTED THROUGH "SUPER DUPER LUCK"? IF SO, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE, OTHERWISE SHUT YOUR HOLE...MEIOSIS? CALL IT "CHALUPAS" WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, BOTH HAVE NO PROOF THAT IT CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS..
"To surrender to ignorance and call it SUPER LUCK has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - BY ME...
I recommend atheists get education, and Guide to the Bible, understand it and not take it literally, Theists too. It's a well written book about what was happening in those who rejected God and those who accepted Him. Nothing really complex, just a guide to life. Plus, it backs up stuff with historical facts. I don't mean what you think I'm meaning... Anyways, it's well written and easy to read. Unless your an idiot and thinks the bible which is a moral guidance can also solve geometry and scientific theories.
Yes atheist, they SUDDENLY CAME INTO BEING BY SUPER DUPER LUCK, or as you like to call it "chance", NOW THAT YOU MADE A CLAIM OF CHANCE, PROVE ITS POSSIBILITY, and SINCE U CANT, SHUT YOUR HOLE, AND DONT EVEN TELL ME ABOUT FUTURE POSSIBILITY (PSYCHIC PHENOMENON), I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR WISHFULL THINKING, ARGUMENT IS CURRENT, THEREFORE PRESENT EVIDENCE NOW, IF WE ARGUE IN FUTURE, PRESENT EVIDENCE IN FUTURE OK KID?
SUPER DUPER LUCK? AGAIN, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU,UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR HOLE. YOUR RIGHT, IT ISNT HARD TO IMAGINE HOW AN ATOM CAN MAGICLY BECOME HUMANS IN MILLIONS OF YEARS JUST AS IT IS NOT HARD TO IMAGINE A GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY CREATED YOU AND YOUR MAMA. IMAGINATION IS ENTERTAINING ISNT IT...
GOD DOESNT MAKE MISTAKES, YOUR JUDGMENT HOWEVER IS A MISTAKE. IF THE BIBLE IS POORLY WRITTEN AND IT CONTAINS ALL THE MORAL DOCTRINE AND VIRTUES, WHAT THEN DO YOU CALL "SUPER COINCIDENCE", OR "EXTRA-SUPER LUCK"? IF THATS NOT POORLY WRITTEN, THEN I DONT KNOW WHAT IS.
IF YOU THINK A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS EVIDENT IS A "THEORY", THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL "CHANCE" OR "LUCK" WHICH HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL? LOL...
LOL, IF THE MECHANISMS GIVES YOU LIFE BY RUNNING SMOOTHLY (U MUST BE ON SOMETHING DUDE), THEN SHOULDNT THAT SO-CALLED MECHANICS BE CALLED "LIFE GIVING FORCE"? LOL...BETTER YET WHY DONT YOU CALL THE "MECHANICS" A "CHUPACABRA RUNNING SMOOTHLY", WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SPELLING? AFTER ALL, BOTH OF THEM HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MIGHT AS WELL CAL IT "MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE RUNNING SMOOTHLY" OR "POWERPUFF GIRLS RUNNING SMOOTHLY GAVE US LIFE"...PHYSICS INDEED IS QUITE COMPLEX, BUT TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE ISNT, GIVE EVIDENCE OR SHUT YOUR HOLE OK...YOU CANT CREATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVENT BEEN CREATED AND YOU CALL THAT LOGIC? BECAUSE A COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE FACTORY CAN CREATE ANOTHER COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, THEN DOES IT MEAN THE FACTORY EXISTED THROUGH "SUPER DUPER LUCK"? IF SO, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE, OTHERWISE SHUT YOUR HOLE...MEIOSIS? CALL IT "CHALUPAS" WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, BOTH HAVE NO PROOF THAT IT CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS..
"To surrender to ignorance and call it SUPER LUCK has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - BY ME...
I recommend atheists get education, and Guide to the Bible, understand it and not take it literally, Theists too. It's a well written book about what was happening in those who rejected God and those who accepted Him. Nothing really complex, just a guide to life. Plus, it backs up stuff with historical facts. I don't mean what you think I'm meaning... Anyways, it's well written and easy to read. Unless your an idiot and thinks the bible which is a moral guidance can also solve geometry and scientific theories.
Lady
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
"My current understanding
of human existance suggests that when we die, *poof* end
of conciousness."
** Is Hell better than nothing.......hmmm
No better than little green men on mars... why are you so
confident that your loving 'God' has set up a place of eternal
torture? Imagine, if you will, someone who dedicates his life
to saving lives, helping the sick heal, etc... If this person does
not believe in 'God' simply because he has not seen any proof
of its existance then he will be tortured for an eterenity? But
of course! It's natural selection of the Heavens! Those who
accpept with proof go to Heaven. Those who accept without
proof go to Heaven. Those who don't accept without proof go
straight to Hell. The end result? Love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Curious, what is proof of God for you? Wait...don't tell anyone,
pray for it?
Well... the mere fact that I discovered that little Septuagent
carbon dating fact suggests that I (an Athiest) have done more
to prove that 'God' exists than any 'believer' has. You have a
short memory on the praying thing... so to remind you, I've done
that. Also, don't forget about my currently open invite at
Starbucks.
But, that doesn't entirely (and semi-indirectly) answer your
question. What would be proof to me?:
* God taking me up on my Starbucks invite.
* God planting some thought directly into my brain (in waking
life) completely out of context of anything that was going on
in it alaready.
* Witnessing a non-illusionary event that just flat out breaks
all known physical laws.
or maybe he/she/it can just stop by someday and say 'Hi'.
-CC
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
"My current understanding
of human existance suggests that when we die, *poof* end
of conciousness."
** Is Hell better than nothing.......hmmm
No better than little green men on mars... why are you so
confident that your loving 'God' has set up a place of eternal
torture? Imagine, if you will, someone who dedicates his life
to saving lives, helping the sick heal, etc... If this person does
not believe in 'God' simply because he has not seen any proof
of its existance then he will be tortured for an eterenity? But
of course! It's natural selection of the Heavens! Those who
accpept with proof go to Heaven. Those who accept without
proof go to Heaven. Those who don't accept without proof go
straight to Hell. The end result? Love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Curious, what is proof of God for you? Wait...don't tell anyone,
pray for it?
Well... the mere fact that I discovered that little Septuagent
carbon dating fact suggests that I (an Athiest) have done more
to prove that 'God' exists than any 'believer' has. You have a
short memory on the praying thing... so to remind you, I've done
that. Also, don't forget about my currently open invite at
Starbucks.
But, that doesn't entirely (and semi-indirectly) answer your
question. What would be proof to me?:
* God taking me up on my Starbucks invite.
* God planting some thought directly into my brain (in waking
life) completely out of context of anything that was going on
in it alaready.
* Witnessing a non-illusionary event that just flat out breaks
all known physical laws.
or maybe he/she/it can just stop by someday and say 'Hi'.
-CC
In many ways, I think we are.
I don't see it. Perhaps you have some examples but what I see is the rehashing of old ideas all the progress seems to come from science and philosophy.
The assertiveness of Christianity and it's influence upon the US is quite apparent. However, is this assertiveness a derivative of Christianity itself or is it an accretion. I find that the assertive nature of the Christian paradigm stems largely from the Roman Empire (and from Paul's values in particular)... which makes it just another societally originated ethic.
Which illuminates the primary function of religion in society; governance.
Another social structure. Most (all?) societies exhibit some expression of xenophobia. Humans have very strong tribal instincts.
Frankly, I find the concept of a "wholly internal literalism" oxymoronic. Yes, I believe that a work may have an internal consistency (although I do not see this apparent in the Bible) but literalism necessitates an external reference. Otherwise, it's simply self-referential (with the obvious weaknesses circular reasoning implies).
And herein lies an important difference. Science acknowledges this propensity for error and attempts to correct it. I see little of this in religion. Rather, I see a strong tendency towards perpetuation of such bias.
It seems to me that exploring what the "pure religious ideas" are might be a worthy goal at the moment. Towards that end; the only valid revelation I accept is the principal of unity. I find that all true religious prescriptions are simply derivations of this single principle. Contradiction arises when this principle is subverted by socially driven accretions.
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean here regarding religion. I would tend to say that religion's main focus is an assignation of values to what is perceived. The problem, I find, is that the values are assigned without adequate argument. But I may be off base from what you were getting at.
I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
I didn't mean for you to get defensive. I agree, I just think that you sometimes come across as self contradictory when you do so. I think your language analogy is right on track though.
Yea, sometimes it does but we have to do what we can to get the point across.
And that's fine, depending upon the participants, but I do feel that narrowing or at lease exploring the definition is often necessary to clarify misunderstanding.
Well, I would like to qualify. I would take the time if Lady demonstrated a desire to learn. I just don't see it. What I do see are a slew of preconceptions that she is unlikely to even reconsider much less alter. Thus I'm more willing to discuss with Hobbes, who has demonstrated a willingness to reorder his thinking in light of new understanding. Even when agreement can't or won't be reached an honest examination of the ideas presented must be apparent. Otherwise, I might as well talk to my cats.
It is definitely symptomatic but I think it has more to do with governance and control. The educational system would be more properly termed indoctrination for the most part.
That's not a problem with identification or labels, it's a problem of prejudice.
And I agree that a true understanding requires a broad considerations of the entangled relationships but unless there is some agreement in our fundamentals there's no basis for communication. I also think that some winnowing of the topic needs to be done in consideration of this particular venue. Otherwise we might as well have one thread and discuss everything. We tend to get so far off topic here that the initial query or statement gets lost before it is properly examined. And that's fine for casual conversation but if we wish to actually accomplish something we need to stick on topic.
I don't agree. I view most "higher" activity, physical or mental, as a refinement of our base functions. Thus a basic drive to consume can become the complex and subtle art of fine cooking and a connoisseurs appreciation. Basic communication is refined into poetry, literature, music, and the fine arts. Basic cognition and reason becomes philosophy and science. I'm not saying that the pinnacle should be the categorization and definition of everything... there are basic imponderables in the Universe and I well appreciate the value of generalizations, the unknown/mysterious, and the shift of perspective that a divergence from reason and the concrete can afford. But I do find that the higher orders of activity stem from our base instincts.
~Raithere
Re: Lady
** Look at it this way,
* God is omnipresent even at starbuck's
* Paranormal manifestions which defy physical laws{paranormal thread, one example.}
* 2nd wish, when above two are realized.
or maybe he/she/it can just stop by someday and say 'Hi'.
* likewise
** Look at it this way,
* God is omnipresent even at starbuck's
* Paranormal manifestions which defy physical laws{paranormal thread, one example.}
* 2nd wish, when above two are realized.
or maybe he/she/it can just stop by someday and say 'Hi'.
* likewise
Last edited:
Lady,
<i>** Not everybody believes people&monkeys evolved from a common ancestor...</i>
Unfortunately, they have no good grounds for not believing that. It is a scientific fact.
<i>...or a fetus should be used for stem-cell research...</i>
This, on the other hand, is debateable. Not all scientists agree on this. It's an ethical problem.
<i>Amongst many disputs in the scientific arena ,theories change, likewise the human.</i>
Yes, that's how science advances. In religion, opinions are fixed. You're not really allowed to stray from the One True Message. In science, there is no One True Message, but some arguments are better than others.
<i>Whyever, branches halted, particulary, the space age?</i>
Are you asking why we stopped after going to the moon? That is a matter of politics and economics more than anything else. It isn't because we're afraid. On the contrary, many people would love to see an expansion of space exploration.
<i>If not from fear, should the process of devolution set in more visibly?</i>
What did I say about "devolution" before? There's no such thing.
<i>** Not everybody believes people&monkeys evolved from a common ancestor...</i>
Unfortunately, they have no good grounds for not believing that. It is a scientific fact.
<i>...or a fetus should be used for stem-cell research...</i>
This, on the other hand, is debateable. Not all scientists agree on this. It's an ethical problem.
<i>Amongst many disputs in the scientific arena ,theories change, likewise the human.</i>
Yes, that's how science advances. In religion, opinions are fixed. You're not really allowed to stray from the One True Message. In science, there is no One True Message, but some arguments are better than others.
<i>Whyever, branches halted, particulary, the space age?</i>
Are you asking why we stopped after going to the moon? That is a matter of politics and economics more than anything else. It isn't because we're afraid. On the contrary, many people would love to see an expansion of space exploration.
<i>If not from fear, should the process of devolution set in more visibly?</i>
What did I say about "devolution" before? There's no such thing.
Lady
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
"My current understanding
of human existance suggests that when we die, *poof* end
of conciousness."
** Is Hell better than nothing.......hmmm
No better than little green men on mars... why are you so
confident that your loving 'God' has set up a place of eternal
torture? Imagine, if you will, someone who dedicates his life
to saving lives, helping the sick heal, etc... If this person does
not believe in 'God' simply because he has not seen any proof
of its existance then he will be tortured for an eterenity? But
of course! It's natural selection of the Heavens! Those who
accpept with proof go to Heaven. Those who accept without
proof go to Heaven. Those who don't accept without proof go
straight to Hell. The end result? Love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Curious, what is proof of God for you? Wait...don't tell anyone,
pray for it?
Well... the mere fact that I discovered that little Septuagent
carbon dating fact suggests that I (an Athiest) have done more
to prove that 'God' exists than any 'believer' has. You have a
short memory on the praying thing... so to remind you, I've done
that. Also, don't forget about my currently open invite at
Starbucks.
But, that doesn't entirely (and semi-indirectly) answer your
question. What would be proof to me?:
* God taking me up on my Starbucks invite.
* God planting some thought directly into my brain (in waking
life) completely out of context of anything that was going on
in it alaready.
* Witnessing a non-illusionary event that just flat out breaks
all known physical laws.
-CC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Look at it this way,
* God is omnipresent even at starbuck's
* Paranormal manifestions which defy physical laws{paranormal thread, one example.}
* 2nd wish, when above two are realized.
or maybe he/she/it can just stop by someday and say 'Hi'.
* likewise
But the 'alternative' way of looking at it breaks down the moment
we mention paranormal (well technicall it breaks down in the
first point without proof of existance but Im ignoring that for
the moment). I have never witnessed a single paranormal
event... ever. The paranormal group seems to be full of well...
pollen spore magnifications in pictures passed off as
serpents... remember? On the other hand, I am willing to meet
you halfway. I'll raise 'God' to hypothesis (rather than an opinion)
if you can prove ANYTHING paranormal to me (and the Angels
winning the world series does not count).
-CC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
"My current understanding
of human existance suggests that when we die, *poof* end
of conciousness."
** Is Hell better than nothing.......hmmm
No better than little green men on mars... why are you so
confident that your loving 'God' has set up a place of eternal
torture? Imagine, if you will, someone who dedicates his life
to saving lives, helping the sick heal, etc... If this person does
not believe in 'God' simply because he has not seen any proof
of its existance then he will be tortured for an eterenity? But
of course! It's natural selection of the Heavens! Those who
accpept with proof go to Heaven. Those who accept without
proof go to Heaven. Those who don't accept without proof go
straight to Hell. The end result? Love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Curious, what is proof of God for you? Wait...don't tell anyone,
pray for it?
Well... the mere fact that I discovered that little Septuagent
carbon dating fact suggests that I (an Athiest) have done more
to prove that 'God' exists than any 'believer' has. You have a
short memory on the praying thing... so to remind you, I've done
that. Also, don't forget about my currently open invite at
Starbucks.
But, that doesn't entirely (and semi-indirectly) answer your
question. What would be proof to me?:
* God taking me up on my Starbucks invite.
* God planting some thought directly into my brain (in waking
life) completely out of context of anything that was going on
in it alaready.
* Witnessing a non-illusionary event that just flat out breaks
all known physical laws.
-CC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Look at it this way,
* God is omnipresent even at starbuck's
* Paranormal manifestions which defy physical laws{paranormal thread, one example.}
* 2nd wish, when above two are realized.
or maybe he/she/it can just stop by someday and say 'Hi'.
* likewise
But the 'alternative' way of looking at it breaks down the moment
we mention paranormal (well technicall it breaks down in the
first point without proof of existance but Im ignoring that for
the moment). I have never witnessed a single paranormal
event... ever. The paranormal group seems to be full of well...
pollen spore magnifications in pictures passed off as
serpents... remember? On the other hand, I am willing to meet
you halfway. I'll raise 'God' to hypothesis (rather than an opinion)
if you can prove ANYTHING paranormal to me (and the Angels
winning the world series does not count).
-CC
muscles
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
My response is actually a question... what you are saying is that
anybody whom is not a pervert, is kind, is generous, is loving,
is patient, is thoughtful... etc. goes right to heaven whether
they believe in God or not? Just looking for a confirmation/denial.
-CC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you do all the virtues, generousity, patience, kindness, etc. you are going to- heaven whether you claim to be atheist or not. And in doing this virtues, you accepted christ for he is the word and virtues of life, whether you know it or didnt, whether u admit to it or didnt, whether your atheist or buddhist, you accepted all the virtues, you accepted Jesus who is the way the truth and the life. Simple, I am a teacher, and thats a christian doctrine. Jesus never discriminates, even the Pope today. Jesus accepted the Cannanites, the roman pagans, etc. because you are judged by your virtues, not by your faith for faith is only a stepping stool to doing good works. But then again if you are having a hard time being good and selling all your possesions to help save one life in africa (such are saints) maybe because you didnt pray enough and ask God to help you do good, theres very rare people who are this good and Im far from it, i need to pray alot myself..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there are going to be alot of Athiests in heaven. Silly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
My response is actually a question... what you are saying is that
anybody whom is not a pervert, is kind, is generous, is loving,
is patient, is thoughtful... etc. goes right to heaven whether
they believe in God or not? Just looking for a confirmation/denial.
-CC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you do all the virtues, generousity, patience, kindness, etc. you are going to- heaven whether you claim to be atheist or not. And in doing this virtues, you accepted christ for he is the word and virtues of life, whether you know it or didnt, whether u admit to it or didnt, whether your atheist or buddhist, you accepted all the virtues, you accepted Jesus who is the way the truth and the life. Simple, I am a teacher, and thats a christian doctrine. Jesus never discriminates, even the Pope today. Jesus accepted the Cannanites, the roman pagans, etc. because you are judged by your virtues, not by your faith for faith is only a stepping stool to doing good works. But then again if you are having a hard time being good and selling all your possesions to help save one life in africa (such are saints) maybe because you didnt pray enough and ask God to help you do good, theres very rare people who are this good and Im far from it, i need to pray alot myself..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there are going to be alot of Athiests in heaven. Silly.
J
jjhlk
Guest
Typical Joe Bible Thumper
OMG, I can't believe that somebody posted such drivel...
(This is long because I wished to properly quote everything, I recommend all atheists have a read at it, It's quite funny. I italicized and bolded stuff to make it easier to read.)
Italics, his quoting of me. Bold, me quoting his actual written work.
Originally posted by jjhlk
Silly Atheists...
1. & 2.
At such a temperature matter and anti-matter would suddenly come into being;
Yes atheist, they SUDDENLY CAME INTO BEING BY SUPER DUPER LUCK, or as you like to call it "chance", NOW THAT YOU MADE A CLAIM OF CHANCE, PROVE ITS POSSIBILITY, and SINCE U CANT, SHUT YOUR HOLE, AND DONT EVEN TELL ME ABOUT FUTURE POSSIBILITY (PSYCHIC PHENOMENON), I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR WISHFULL THINKING, ARGUMENT IS CURRENT, THEREFORE PRESENT EVIDENCE NOW, IF WE ARGUE IN FUTURE, PRESENT EVIDENCE IN FUTURE OK KID?
You are quite talented at using quotes. You cut out the rest of the paragraph which explained my topic sentence (which was partly ment to grab your attention). I used the phrasing, "come into being" to amuse myself. But I explained it later on.
Explain it? It goes like this,
"As the universe expands, any matter of radiation in it gets cooler... At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees."
That is from A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking. (Page 116)
What "chance" are you referring to? I never said that about the matter in the universe being created. It's physics and mathematics. BTW, Hawking has theorized that the universe is finite, but with no boundries. Which means it never was created and will never be destroyed. Though the matter may be molested by forces over time.
Originally posted by jjhlk
Eventually, planets would form, conditions for sustaining life would be right, and luck would form what? Viruses, Bacteria, Archaea, somthing even simpler perhaps? It isn't hard to imagine how simple organisms could evolve to human's over time.
SUPER DUPER LUCK? AGAIN, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU,UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR HOLE. YOUR RIGHT, IT ISNT HARD TO IMAGINE HOW AN ATOM CAN MAGICLY BECOME HUMANS IN MILLIONS OF YEARS JUST AS IT IS NOT HARD TO IMAGINE A GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY CREATED YOU AND YOUR MAMA. IMAGINATION IS ENTERTAINING ISNT IT...
Prove evolutionary theory? That is a huge subject, and I'll kill myself before having to explain it all to someone like you, who doesn't even care for the facts. And besides, I don't know the whole complex thing. I said to "imagine" it. That way you won't have to do much thinking. We evolved from apes. Now just apply your newfound knowledge of evolution to a macroscopic scale.
Originally posted by jjhlk
You can't prove or even really disprove something so ridiculus [sic!] as God. The bible is so poorly written it pretty much shoots itself. It's been said that it disregards known facts since the time it's been written. Rewriting the bible seems like a silly idea, God wouldn't make a mistake now would he?
GOD DOESNT MAKE MISTAKES, YOUR JUDGMENT HOWEVER IS A MISTAKE. IF THE BIBLE IS POORLY WRITTEN AND IT CONTAINS ALL THE MORAL DOCTRINE AND VIRTUES, WHAT THEN DO YOU CALL "SUPER COINCIDENCE", OR "EXTRA-SUPER LUCK"? IF THATS NOT POORLY WRITTEN, THEN I DONT KNOW WHAT IS.
My judgement is a mistake? I'm just telling you facts. "God doesn't make mistakes," how about you explain something for once. The bible is poorly written, and esentially tells you to kill those unlike you, fuck your father, fuck on the road, fuck in the cave, cut off the foreskins of the enemy; need I go on? Secular humanism is the bible without the fat. And with real humanism, and hey, it's secular. In fact, we might as well say it's completely unlike the bible. Plus, it EVOLVES, it isn't a series of musty old texts we are expected to follow like the brain dead idiots that we are. It's theory.
Originally posted by jjhlk
Who has dismissed the existance of other life? It is probable considering the inhabitable universe may be infinitely huge. Though unlikely, earth could have been built by aliens, and life experiments could have taken place... It's nearly as a theory as God; well, not really considering that the existance of God is an infinitely stupid theory.
IF YOU THINK A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS EVIDENT IS A "THEORY", THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL "CHANCE" OR "LUCK" WHICH HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL? LOL...
I don't really understand what you're saying here. I was being sarcastic about the alien crap. I was merely demonstrating a theory as ridiculus as the bible. And apparantly YOU thought it was ridiculus too. If you weren't so indoctrinated by religion already I'm sure you'd be an atheist.
Originally posted by jjhlk
You can't remember something before you had the mechanisms for a memory. We are made from a complex series of process', there is no "live giving force", just the mechanisms to keep us running smoothly.
6.
Physics is quite complex a subject indeed. Mathmatics too.
7.
Silly. You can't create yourself if you haven't yet been created. The simplest logic...
9.
Mystery? It's meiosis.
LOL, IF THE MECHANISMS GIVES YOU LIFE BY RUNNING SMOOTHLY (U MUST BE ON SOMETHING DUDE), THEN SHOULDNT THAT SO-CALLED MECHANICS BE CALLED "LIFE GIVING FORCE"? LOL...BETTER YET WHY DONT YOU CALL THE "MECHANICS" A "CHUPACABRA RUNNING SMOOTHLY", WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SPELLING? AFTER ALL, BOTH OF THEM HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MIGHT AS WELL CAL IT "MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE RUNNING SMOOTHLY" OR "POWERPUFF GIRLS RUNNING SMOOTHLY GAVE US LIFE"...PHYSICS INDEED IS QUITE COMPLEX, BUT TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE ISNT, GIVE EVIDENCE OR SHUT YOUR HOLE OK...YOU CANT CREATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVENT BEEN CREATED AND YOU CALL THAT LOGIC? BECAUSE A COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE FACTORY CAN CREATE ANOTHER COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, THEN DOES IT MEAN THE FACTORY EXISTED THROUGH "SUPER DUPER LUCK"? IF SO, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE, OTHERWISE SHUT YOUR HOLE...MEIOSIS? CALL IT "CHALUPAS" WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, BOTH HAVE NO PROOF THAT IT CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS..
We should call a cold and calculated biological process the "Life Giving Force"? It isn't a force. It doesn't give life; it is life at work. What is with you wanting that sort of evidence over and over. Biology is written about in enough books; again, I'll be damned if i'm going to learn it fully and teach you.
"YOU CANT CREATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVENT BEEN CREATED AND YOU CALL THAT LOGIC?"
Umm, yeah! You ought to have been more formally introduced to logic in grade 11 by the Canadian curriculm.
I didn't make up the word Meiosis. I agree however, that we really ought to call it "Chalupas". No proof that it creates life forms... Meiosis is the process of a multicellular organism being made, from the sperm and the egg.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it SUPER LUCK has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - BY ME...
I recommend atheists get education, and Guide to the Bible, understand it and not take it literally, Theists too. It's a well written book about what was happening in those who rejected God and those who accepted Him. Nothing really complex, just a guide to life. Plus, it backs up stuff with historical facts. I don't mean what you think I'm meaning... Anyways, it's well written and easy to read. Unless your an idiot and thinks the bible which is a moral guidance can also solve geometry and scientific theories.
I assume you don't mean Asimov's Guide to the Bible? It's about who did what, and compares it to things that were going on at the time. It doesn't say anything about the message behind the bible, its virtues, or its moral doctrine. Clearly I've subliminally brainwashed you to advertise Asimov's book. Seriously, you're recommending a book you've never read, assuming that it's pro-theism. Asimov was a devout atheist. But this book is subjective, and about WHAT I JUST STATED.
It you ever write in CAPS again, I won't spend the half-hour it took to write back to you.
I think this excellent example of an indoctrinated fool is enough to scare everyone into the arms of atheism.
OMG, I can't believe that somebody posted such drivel...
(This is long because I wished to properly quote everything, I recommend all atheists have a read at it, It's quite funny. I italicized and bolded stuff to make it easier to read.)
Italics, his quoting of me. Bold, me quoting his actual written work.
Originally posted by jjhlk
Silly Atheists...
1. & 2.
At such a temperature matter and anti-matter would suddenly come into being;
Yes atheist, they SUDDENLY CAME INTO BEING BY SUPER DUPER LUCK, or as you like to call it "chance", NOW THAT YOU MADE A CLAIM OF CHANCE, PROVE ITS POSSIBILITY, and SINCE U CANT, SHUT YOUR HOLE, AND DONT EVEN TELL ME ABOUT FUTURE POSSIBILITY (PSYCHIC PHENOMENON), I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR WISHFULL THINKING, ARGUMENT IS CURRENT, THEREFORE PRESENT EVIDENCE NOW, IF WE ARGUE IN FUTURE, PRESENT EVIDENCE IN FUTURE OK KID?
You are quite talented at using quotes. You cut out the rest of the paragraph which explained my topic sentence (which was partly ment to grab your attention). I used the phrasing, "come into being" to amuse myself. But I explained it later on.
Explain it? It goes like this,
"As the universe expands, any matter of radiation in it gets cooler... At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees."
That is from A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking. (Page 116)
What "chance" are you referring to? I never said that about the matter in the universe being created. It's physics and mathematics. BTW, Hawking has theorized that the universe is finite, but with no boundries. Which means it never was created and will never be destroyed. Though the matter may be molested by forces over time.
Originally posted by jjhlk
Eventually, planets would form, conditions for sustaining life would be right, and luck would form what? Viruses, Bacteria, Archaea, somthing even simpler perhaps? It isn't hard to imagine how simple organisms could evolve to human's over time.
SUPER DUPER LUCK? AGAIN, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU,UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR HOLE. YOUR RIGHT, IT ISNT HARD TO IMAGINE HOW AN ATOM CAN MAGICLY BECOME HUMANS IN MILLIONS OF YEARS JUST AS IT IS NOT HARD TO IMAGINE A GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY CREATED YOU AND YOUR MAMA. IMAGINATION IS ENTERTAINING ISNT IT...
Prove evolutionary theory? That is a huge subject, and I'll kill myself before having to explain it all to someone like you, who doesn't even care for the facts. And besides, I don't know the whole complex thing. I said to "imagine" it. That way you won't have to do much thinking. We evolved from apes. Now just apply your newfound knowledge of evolution to a macroscopic scale.
Originally posted by jjhlk
You can't prove or even really disprove something so ridiculus [sic!] as God. The bible is so poorly written it pretty much shoots itself. It's been said that it disregards known facts since the time it's been written. Rewriting the bible seems like a silly idea, God wouldn't make a mistake now would he?
GOD DOESNT MAKE MISTAKES, YOUR JUDGMENT HOWEVER IS A MISTAKE. IF THE BIBLE IS POORLY WRITTEN AND IT CONTAINS ALL THE MORAL DOCTRINE AND VIRTUES, WHAT THEN DO YOU CALL "SUPER COINCIDENCE", OR "EXTRA-SUPER LUCK"? IF THATS NOT POORLY WRITTEN, THEN I DONT KNOW WHAT IS.
My judgement is a mistake? I'm just telling you facts. "God doesn't make mistakes," how about you explain something for once. The bible is poorly written, and esentially tells you to kill those unlike you, fuck your father, fuck on the road, fuck in the cave, cut off the foreskins of the enemy; need I go on? Secular humanism is the bible without the fat. And with real humanism, and hey, it's secular. In fact, we might as well say it's completely unlike the bible. Plus, it EVOLVES, it isn't a series of musty old texts we are expected to follow like the brain dead idiots that we are. It's theory.
Originally posted by jjhlk
Who has dismissed the existance of other life? It is probable considering the inhabitable universe may be infinitely huge. Though unlikely, earth could have been built by aliens, and life experiments could have taken place... It's nearly as a theory as God; well, not really considering that the existance of God is an infinitely stupid theory.
IF YOU THINK A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS EVIDENT IS A "THEORY", THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL "CHANCE" OR "LUCK" WHICH HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL? LOL...
I don't really understand what you're saying here. I was being sarcastic about the alien crap. I was merely demonstrating a theory as ridiculus as the bible. And apparantly YOU thought it was ridiculus too. If you weren't so indoctrinated by religion already I'm sure you'd be an atheist.
Originally posted by jjhlk
You can't remember something before you had the mechanisms for a memory. We are made from a complex series of process', there is no "live giving force", just the mechanisms to keep us running smoothly.
6.
Physics is quite complex a subject indeed. Mathmatics too.
7.
Silly. You can't create yourself if you haven't yet been created. The simplest logic...
9.
Mystery? It's meiosis.
LOL, IF THE MECHANISMS GIVES YOU LIFE BY RUNNING SMOOTHLY (U MUST BE ON SOMETHING DUDE), THEN SHOULDNT THAT SO-CALLED MECHANICS BE CALLED "LIFE GIVING FORCE"? LOL...BETTER YET WHY DONT YOU CALL THE "MECHANICS" A "CHUPACABRA RUNNING SMOOTHLY", WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SPELLING? AFTER ALL, BOTH OF THEM HAVE NO EVIDENCE, MIGHT AS WELL CAL IT "MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE RUNNING SMOOTHLY" OR "POWERPUFF GIRLS RUNNING SMOOTHLY GAVE US LIFE"...PHYSICS INDEED IS QUITE COMPLEX, BUT TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE ISNT, GIVE EVIDENCE OR SHUT YOUR HOLE OK...YOU CANT CREATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVENT BEEN CREATED AND YOU CALL THAT LOGIC? BECAUSE A COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE FACTORY CAN CREATE ANOTHER COMPUTER INTELLIGENCE, THEN DOES IT MEAN THE FACTORY EXISTED THROUGH "SUPER DUPER LUCK"? IF SO, PROVE YOUR CLAIM OF CHANCE, OTHERWISE SHUT YOUR HOLE...MEIOSIS? CALL IT "CHALUPAS" WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, BOTH HAVE NO PROOF THAT IT CAN CREATE ANY LIFE FORMS..
We should call a cold and calculated biological process the "Life Giving Force"? It isn't a force. It doesn't give life; it is life at work. What is with you wanting that sort of evidence over and over. Biology is written about in enough books; again, I'll be damned if i'm going to learn it fully and teach you.
"YOU CANT CREATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVENT BEEN CREATED AND YOU CALL THAT LOGIC?"
Umm, yeah! You ought to have been more formally introduced to logic in grade 11 by the Canadian curriculm.
I didn't make up the word Meiosis. I agree however, that we really ought to call it "Chalupas". No proof that it creates life forms... Meiosis is the process of a multicellular organism being made, from the sperm and the egg.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it SUPER LUCK has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - BY ME...
I recommend atheists get education, and Guide to the Bible, understand it and not take it literally, Theists too. It's a well written book about what was happening in those who rejected God and those who accepted Him. Nothing really complex, just a guide to life. Plus, it backs up stuff with historical facts. I don't mean what you think I'm meaning... Anyways, it's well written and easy to read. Unless your an idiot and thinks the bible which is a moral guidance can also solve geometry and scientific theories.
I assume you don't mean Asimov's Guide to the Bible? It's about who did what, and compares it to things that were going on at the time. It doesn't say anything about the message behind the bible, its virtues, or its moral doctrine. Clearly I've subliminally brainwashed you to advertise Asimov's book. Seriously, you're recommending a book you've never read, assuming that it's pro-theism. Asimov was a devout atheist. But this book is subjective, and about WHAT I JUST STATED.
It you ever write in CAPS again, I won't spend the half-hour it took to write back to you.
I think this excellent example of an indoctrinated fool is enough to scare everyone into the arms of atheism.
Last edited by a moderator:
jjhlk, i agree with evolution because the church does, and i agree with scientific theories that contains evidence, simple. I just dont feel like starting this debate all over again because I had this topic argument woth xelios, frencheneez, xev (devil brainwashed gothic guy), and many other atheist. However, there is one topic that u did brought out that im interested, you said that the bible is poorly written, explain, do you mean it is self-contradictory? If so, then post what you think are contradictions and let me observe them, ok?
xev = female
xev x= goth
xev x= devil
xev x= goth
xev x= devil
Lady,
<i>**Monkey? To each his own </i>
Huh? What do you mean by this?
<i>** Ultimately its not the knowledge that is wrong, rather, how science is used, a blue print of a individuals moral code.</i>
Science itself is a collection of methods and knowledge. It is morally neutral. How it is used is moulded by people's pre-existing moral systems. Religious people misuse science just as often and as much as atheists.
<i>** Despite the set backs of Galileo & Caparnacius, science has fianlly arrived at the space age, yet halted? Is this not devolution of the mind?</i>
No. I just explained that it is a matter of politics and economics.
(Also, the spelling is "Copernicus".)
<i>Regardless of our ignorance, paranormal occurences come to us.</i>
Do they? What kind of paranormal occurences? I don't know of any verified cases.
<i>**Monkey? To each his own </i>
Huh? What do you mean by this?
<i>** Ultimately its not the knowledge that is wrong, rather, how science is used, a blue print of a individuals moral code.</i>
Science itself is a collection of methods and knowledge. It is morally neutral. How it is used is moulded by people's pre-existing moral systems. Religious people misuse science just as often and as much as atheists.
<i>** Despite the set backs of Galileo & Caparnacius, science has fianlly arrived at the space age, yet halted? Is this not devolution of the mind?</i>
No. I just explained that it is a matter of politics and economics.
(Also, the spelling is "Copernicus".)
<i>Regardless of our ignorance, paranormal occurences come to us.</i>
Do they? What kind of paranormal occurences? I don't know of any verified cases.
Ummm ... smoke, ramble & roll?
We see on an intellectual level that the precepts of Christianity can have a vast effect on how people view the world and consequently what equals proper conduct. But in the terms of poor law and welfare--Spartanism is more practical, but is it preferable?
Am I, for instance, the first person to passionately believe that the protection of the weak actually helps the species? Perhaps, but I don't think so. On the other hand, why didn't anyone say it this way hundreds of years ago? Because there was never any reason, aside from God's will, to become charitable or philanthropic. Objectively, Spartanism seems the way to go.
We must also consider that if we look at the produce of the US, the clear majority of its contributors happen to believe something affirmative about Jesus Christ. For instance, I may not be on the best of terms with my child's maternal grandfather, but I cannot deny that the guy got to work every day almost without fail, and I cannot deny that he performed his job outstandingly well. Part of what motivated him directly was his Christian obligation. I can't throw that away just to fuel a sense of supremacy as regards Christianity.
I'm glad you noted the social ethic:
• It's a human problem, and not one within any classification
• As long as we continue to separate religion from other ideas that have similar divisive results, we will continue to treat a common idea as foreign to itself, and never really get to know it.
The point being is that the same phrase has two different values to people. Even if we take this literally.
In that sense, we might take two Christians looking at compassion. One thinks that compassion the way the Inquisitors read Matthew 25. The other thinks of compassion the way someone like me might read Matthew 5. The former will burn you at the stake, the latter will understand that you're different and make a kind offer of engagement (in theory) that is no different from anyone telling you that you should vote for the other candidate.
Both can read the Bible literally. One will remind you of a Jack Chick comic, the other will remind you of that Christian you always forget about because he's not always reminding you that he's a Christian.
Besides, the Virgin Birth, for instance, is easy to perceive when you stop to consider it the idea literally. A virgin birth? Of course; at one point, virgin referred to a woman who had not given birth yet.
Now the wholly internal literalism will still assert a "virgin birth". But what it won't assert is that the "virgin birth" is a fictional, psychosocial metaphor offered to signify some deep Freudian conscience. It's kind of like looking at a Rorschach. What we see are ink blots. What they look like is a different thing altogether.
• You wrote, What I don't think you addressed properly is the flexibility of religion. A simple historic observance demonstrates a radical shifts in Christian principles.
• I responded: What new issues has (especially) Christianity put before us? There is a core of dogmatic beliefs which have persisted for two-thousand years, and the apparent differences in stylistic execution come, I think, from a redefinition of terms.
• That seems only marginally different from: Science acknowledges this propensity for error and attempts to correct it. I see little of this in religion. Rather, I see a strong tendency towards perpetuation of such bias.
The reason for this is because, as I wrote several posts ago, There is a core of dogmatic beliefs which have persisted for two-thousand years, and the apparent differences in stylistic execution come, I think, from a redefinition of terms. This is the flexibility apparent in Christianity. It isn't in dogma, but in interpretation. New interpretations reflect changing priorities and values. The advent of automobiles, telephones, televisions, computers, and so forth have changed much about the social dynamic: airplanes, nuclear power, machine guns. The central dogma has stayed the same. The interpretation of what that dogma demands and also of what the Bible says about resolution changes according to the needs and expressions of each generation.
And yet now we find you leaning away from that flexibility: I see a strong tendency towards perpetuation of such bias.
I agree that this condition exists. I won't argue that. But I'm having trouble putting that statement beside: A simple historic observance demonstrates a radical shifts in Christian principles.
I also agree that this condition exists. However, the reconciliation of these two ideas is not as simple as it would seem they should be. I submit that I have properly addressed the flexibility of religion, and that what I am telling you does to a certain degree reconcile the "radical shifts" with the inflexibility that tends "toward perpetuation of bias".
You're dealing with at least two sets of ideas: the actual dogmatic foundation itself, and what people think of it.
And the trumpets blare and the marching bands file into the street. Tickertape rains down like manna from heaven and the House of the Tiassa rejoices.
You've got it.
Exactly!
Ring the bells, roll out the trolleys, call Icarus Montgolfier Wright and Christus Apollo! Go tell it on the mountain!
(I really am this excited ....)
And now you know approximately what "core" the Sufis are seeking, and thus why the idea of accretions is so important to me.
Jubel Ale has hit the shelves up here. It's the best beer in the world. I shall raise a glass to you tonight, sir.
And you are correct, the values are assigned without adequate argument.
You're not entirely off base, but to put out there an idea that I know I've touched on in other topics:
•_Many people take their faith in God as a starting point; we see this result when we encounter Christian advocates such as we have occasionally seen at Sciforums who are merely presumptuous, hostile, and actually seem devoid of compassion. I would speculate that this issue, to varying degrees, is the primary problem within vulgar religions, especially Christianity. Thus you end up in the classic argument about God being the author of the Bible and we know because the Bible tells us, or some-such.
• Some religious people are smart enough to take God as a future goal. You find this idea in some form, often unexpressed, in Sufism, Buddhism (other Buddhist stickiness about God notwithstanding), and so forth. That is why you'll often hear a learned Sufi say, "I haven't learned anything."
• In a similar sense, knowledge is not a starting point. It is for further explorations, but analogously knowledge cannot be presumed, it must be attained.
Thus:
• God is that which is greater than anything we can imagine.
It's Anselm, I think. The rest of Anselm doens't make any real sense, but the definition is easy enough to resolve. Nobody can tell me what God is. The whole of what the term equals to people exceeds the physical capabilities of my individual brain. The whole of what it can represent exceeds the capabilities of my entire lifetime. God is works well as a phrase because it attempts to describe nothing else. It is, of course, not entirely accurate since God also represents those things which Are Not. But functionally, God is stands as a statement I simply cannot deny. Combined with an acceptable definition of God, it is dishonest for me to maintain my former atheism.
• Atheism, for instance, has a higher intellectual potential than something that dogmatically limits its field of inquiry. We have, in the past, argued that atheists are smarter. I actually tend to believe this, but that's my own problem. However, to look at it from the point of view that one group of people might be smarter or superior to another--and I'm not after a provocative point here about people's intelligence--what is the course of action of the Superior? Sparta, for instance? Or something a little more compassionate?
If the smart do not educate the intellectually-challenged, then each new intellectually-challenged person will merely be another drop in a vast ocean of idiocy.
It takes time, I admit. But it can be done.
Likewise labels. Humans classify and enumerate in order to identify and establish a relationship with a thing in the Universe. To apply classifications wrongly is problematic.
What it ends up looking like is people arguing against each other's existence. It's kind of strange that way. I expect a religious person to narrow a given discussion to first his or her general paradigm (e.g. Christianity, Wicca, &c.) and then even further to a localized paradigm, and then even further to the personal paradigm. And I expect that religious person at that point to forget that other people are not him or her and cannot see the same thing in the same way.
Because it's part of the result of religion. That narrow focus is part of the religious execution.
I've said a lot of things about atheism in my time, but its biggest betrayal, the reason for my outright distaste, is that it further narrowed my perspective of the world. And this wasn't a condition of the word itself, any more than Sunday is the real Christian sabbath. Like I've always said, it was about other atheists and integrity. Now, that's not quite a swipe.
But a certain fundamental personal integrity was gone. I gave up religion when I was younger because I thought being an atheist would broaden my horizons, increase my knowledge, and spread my compassion. My perspective narrowed, and knowledge and compassion evaporated. It happens. Basically, there was no integrity among the atheists I knew. Nor is that a swipe.
What disturbs me most is the general lack of that integrity around here. And you can take that as a swipe if you want. But it's the whole reason I'm stomping around in my clodhoppers these days. It's getting so narrow in the Religion forum my head's about to burst like a zit.
Does anyone remember the minor archetype in movie sages, the irrelevant wise man who tells stories that seem to have nothing to do with the crisis playing out? Did anyone ever learn anything from the mysterious wisemen? I would hope so, since so many people seem to admire them; I know philosophers who discuss philosophy for the rush they get from sounding so confusing to other people--it's kind of funny; they'll only discuss philosophy when there's people around to confuse or impress. They all want to be the mysterious wiseman.
Point being that people often just manage to look like the mysterious wiseman; it's too hard for them or not important enough for them to be like the wiseman. It's why Christians resorted to the "WWJD" campaign; some people just wanted to "look" Christian, an age-old problem that I'm quite sure Christ addressed. WWJD: some people had to be reminded of this. Why? Because they had narrowed Christianity too far, just as we often narrow topics too far in our debates.
Remember school elections? How you could talk about things, but it works better just to say the issue and throw candy? How firmly they cast and kilned the future Crossfire audience, the future FOX News viewers. And look at the way it works out .... Imagine you're a guest on a FOX News show. And imagine someone says to you: "That's why it's called a missile defense system, silly. So we can have missiles to defend ourselves."
Do you discuss the merits of having missiles to defend ourselves, or do you want to discuss missile defense systems? Would you let the newstalkie set the topic of discussion inappropriately? Perhaps in her individual universe that's what a missile defense system is, but really ....
I don't mind the narrowing of the topic to focus on the issues, but let's bear in mind the general path that takes. I still hope for something better.
Okay, I'm with you.
Here's the thing: people aren't refining. Have you noticed that philosophies are getting more simplistic, broader in their vision, and generally weaker and more fanciful? Have you noticed that educational standards are slipping, that the truly bright performers are becoming more rare in important arenas? I'm happy that people are taking a more artistic direction, but a nation of filmmakers cannot grow wheat.
Some of the most intelligent people I know I don't bother talking to. Seriously, it's gotten weird. But it's like watching your hero fall from his prime, in a way. It's sad because this once-great thinker is now sitting there serving you the same kind of horsepucky you can get from the television. When the most part of what people think about is survival, is keeping up, then we're not aiming for progress. I've been critical of atheists that it's enough for them to be "like" or "equal to" religious people in intelligence and maturity and conduct; I've been critical of Christians for saying it's enough for them to be "like" or "equal to" the evil pagans and infidels they criticize.
It's kind of interesting how, as I face fatherhood in a matter of days (3 wks and counting 'til due date), everyone around me is asking me to think of anything but fatherhood. (What's even more bizarre is that list of things that your parents would eventually apologize for? Those "We didn't know" kinds of things? People want me to do all of those wrong things, too, even though I know better. Why? Because it's "normal". You don't want your kid to be singled out and alienated, do you? Okay, I'll stop before I get too far off track, but that's how universal these processes seem to run. It all feels and smells and tastes like the same brand of idiocy, everywhere I turn.
And here at Sciforums we have a chance to do whatever we want, but included in that whatever is the chance to figure out the things that confuse us. That's why I find it so sad that Sciforums is in style and outcome very much a microcosmic representation of reality. We have a chance to escape that microcosm and forge new territory, and hopefully spill that spirit back into our daily lives.
But listen to people: sex, money, and praise for their own sense of humor. There is a presumption that the self cannot be wrong, and any deviation is intentionally hostile toward the self. Take a look around: some of the atheists have more specific descriptions of what God is than the theists, but that's only so they can say it doesn't exist. Well, I can also say that forty-foot purple snails with pink polka-dotted shells that eat exclusively Barbie dolls don't exist.
I may like stories, but I can't make a living working for a video store or a cinema or a bookshop. I'd rather write them, but that's a completely messed-up tale for another day.
Get up, go to work, come home, go out and pursue sex.
Get up, go to work, come home, entertain and educate your children.
Get up, go to work ... (fill in the blanks)
Point being, it does not say: Get up, make the world a better place for yourself and others. Or how about: Get up, evolve.
Tragically, it's merely, Get up, sustain, try to keep up.
Human beings have so much potential, yet we worry too much about the "necessary", and invent things to call "necessary" (subjective realities; e.g. religion, nation-identities, &c.).
There's another joke among writers and musicians: When you're starving, insane, and your dog has left you alone because you suck, you're almost there.
Ever wonder why so many artists are hostile snobs? Because they're literally afraid of what the world does to them. They've suffered, they're still insane, and what can you say about a guy whose dog will betray him?
Why is there no new Sistine Chapel? Why is it taking so long for the next Mozart to come along? Whence comes the next generation of greatness? We look down on the patrons of old because they "censored" the art, as such. Yet the art stands out even today, because people had time to do what they were really, really good at. And that's how people got smart enough to have a minor atheistic revolution in the nineteenth century that would pave the way for today's atheists. Just as a for-instance.
That's what I mean. We shouldn't let the mere eating, sleeping, and fucking become the whole of our focus. I'm all for fine dining, but you know ... I'm talking about breadwinning.
Other than another human being, how many tools do you intentionally use for something they're not made for?
And when we start taking more time for the issues and items more important to us as human beings (as opposed to being important to us as persons, as opposed again to being important to us as people ... oh, crap. Anyway ....)
We raised temples to gods, we paid homage to our food, to our lusts ... do you realize how much of the present generation pays tribute to labor and wealth and greed? Really, I'll take rainbows and muses over that, any day. Do you live to work or work to live? All sorts of simple sloganism works here.
It's all a matter of priorities.
I just don't like the feeling that we're settling for something lesser, y'know?
thanx,
Tiassa
The following comes from Walter Trattner's From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America:
I might also point you to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, by Max Weber to observe certain religious interaction with economic models, and also Albert O. Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph, which does look at issues of conscience in terms of economy and society.
We see on an intellectual level that the precepts of Christianity can have a vast effect on how people view the world and consequently what equals proper conduct. But in the terms of poor law and welfare--Spartanism is more practical, but is it preferable?
Am I, for instance, the first person to passionately believe that the protection of the weak actually helps the species? Perhaps, but I don't think so. On the other hand, why didn't anyone say it this way hundreds of years ago? Because there was never any reason, aside from God's will, to become charitable or philanthropic. Objectively, Spartanism seems the way to go.
Christianity itself is an accretion, but that's beside the point.
We must also consider that if we look at the produce of the US, the clear majority of its contributors happen to believe something affirmative about Jesus Christ. For instance, I may not be on the best of terms with my child's maternal grandfather, but I cannot deny that the guy got to work every day almost without fail, and I cannot deny that he performed his job outstandingly well. Part of what motivated him directly was his Christian obligation. I can't throw that away just to fuel a sense of supremacy as regards Christianity.
I'm glad you noted the social ethic:
Of organized religion, yes. Of faith, no. However, I've been rocking the boat today comparing the atheistic objectivity toward God and the notable lack of such objectivity elsewhere in life. On that note: how, then, is religion any different than any other body politic to which we choose to subscribe? I'm an American, which is an even dumber classification than "Christian".
As such I will hold to two ideas:
• It's a human problem, and not one within any classification
• As long as we continue to separate religion from other ideas that have similar divisive results, we will continue to treat a common idea as foreign to itself, and never really get to know it.
You know, some people get turned on by phrases like, "Fuck me hard." I, personally, don't. A woman seems catty and distasteful when she plays the slut. Some people really, really get off on it.
The point being is that the same phrase has two different values to people. Even if we take this literally.
In that sense, we might take two Christians looking at compassion. One thinks that compassion the way the Inquisitors read Matthew 25. The other thinks of compassion the way someone like me might read Matthew 5. The former will burn you at the stake, the latter will understand that you're different and make a kind offer of engagement (in theory) that is no different from anyone telling you that you should vote for the other candidate.
Both can read the Bible literally. One will remind you of a Jack Chick comic, the other will remind you of that Christian you always forget about because he's not always reminding you that he's a Christian.
Besides, the Virgin Birth, for instance, is easy to perceive when you stop to consider it the idea literally. A virgin birth? Of course; at one point, virgin referred to a woman who had not given birth yet.
Now the wholly internal literalism will still assert a "virgin birth". But what it won't assert is that the "virgin birth" is a fictional, psychosocial metaphor offered to signify some deep Freudian conscience. It's kind of like looking at a Rorschach. What we see are ink blots. What they look like is a different thing altogether.
Raithere, I'm getting a distinctly confused vibe going on right now. I don't actually think we're in opposition here. If I go back to where we have a notable and expressed disagreement, I'm not sure it really holds that we do disagree:
• You wrote, What I don't think you addressed properly is the flexibility of religion. A simple historic observance demonstrates a radical shifts in Christian principles.
• I responded: What new issues has (especially) Christianity put before us? There is a core of dogmatic beliefs which have persisted for two-thousand years, and the apparent differences in stylistic execution come, I think, from a redefinition of terms.
• That seems only marginally different from: Science acknowledges this propensity for error and attempts to correct it. I see little of this in religion. Rather, I see a strong tendency towards perpetuation of such bias.
The reason for this is because, as I wrote several posts ago, There is a core of dogmatic beliefs which have persisted for two-thousand years, and the apparent differences in stylistic execution come, I think, from a redefinition of terms. This is the flexibility apparent in Christianity. It isn't in dogma, but in interpretation. New interpretations reflect changing priorities and values. The advent of automobiles, telephones, televisions, computers, and so forth have changed much about the social dynamic: airplanes, nuclear power, machine guns. The central dogma has stayed the same. The interpretation of what that dogma demands and also of what the Bible says about resolution changes according to the needs and expressions of each generation.
And yet now we find you leaning away from that flexibility: I see a strong tendency towards perpetuation of such bias.
I agree that this condition exists. I won't argue that. But I'm having trouble putting that statement beside: A simple historic observance demonstrates a radical shifts in Christian principles.
I also agree that this condition exists. However, the reconciliation of these two ideas is not as simple as it would seem they should be. I submit that I have properly addressed the flexibility of religion, and that what I am telling you does to a certain degree reconcile the "radical shifts" with the inflexibility that tends "toward perpetuation of bias".
You're dealing with at least two sets of ideas: the actual dogmatic foundation itself, and what people think of it.
I tend to think it is a worthy goal. Figuring out what these ideas are for specifically will help us realize what we're supposed to do with them.
YES!!!
And the trumpets blare and the marching bands file into the street. Tickertape rains down like manna from heaven and the House of the Tiassa rejoices.
You've got it.
Exactly!
Ring the bells, roll out the trolleys, call Icarus Montgolfier Wright and Christus Apollo! Go tell it on the mountain!
(I really am this excited ....)
And now you know approximately what "core" the Sufis are seeking, and thus why the idea of accretions is so important to me.
Jubel Ale has hit the shelves up here. It's the best beer in the world. I shall raise a glass to you tonight, sir.
But that's almost the same thing.
And you are correct, the values are assigned without adequate argument.
You're not entirely off base, but to put out there an idea that I know I've touched on in other topics:
•_Many people take their faith in God as a starting point; we see this result when we encounter Christian advocates such as we have occasionally seen at Sciforums who are merely presumptuous, hostile, and actually seem devoid of compassion. I would speculate that this issue, to varying degrees, is the primary problem within vulgar religions, especially Christianity. Thus you end up in the classic argument about God being the author of the Bible and we know because the Bible tells us, or some-such.
• Some religious people are smart enough to take God as a future goal. You find this idea in some form, often unexpressed, in Sufism, Buddhism (other Buddhist stickiness about God notwithstanding), and so forth. That is why you'll often hear a learned Sufi say, "I haven't learned anything."
• In a similar sense, knowledge is not a starting point. It is for further explorations, but analogously knowledge cannot be presumed, it must be attained.
Thus:
It's very simple:
• God is that which is greater than anything we can imagine.
It's Anselm, I think. The rest of Anselm doens't make any real sense, but the definition is easy enough to resolve. Nobody can tell me what God is. The whole of what the term equals to people exceeds the physical capabilities of my individual brain. The whole of what it can represent exceeds the capabilities of my entire lifetime. God is works well as a phrase because it attempts to describe nothing else. It is, of course, not entirely accurate since God also represents those things which Are Not. But functionally, God is stands as a statement I simply cannot deny. Combined with an acceptable definition of God, it is dishonest for me to maintain my former atheism.
I didn't mean to bristle like that. But I'm quite sensitive to the point because it is legitimate. I have no idea what to do about those people, and it shows. I might have been thinking more "preacher" than "defensive" at the time.
The issue, in the long run, being whether or not any individual instance is truly necessary. Sadly, none of it is ...
I'm well and fine with that. I think there's a difference between a beneficial paring of factors and the narrowed-for-sound-bite routine.
Indeed, indeed. But stop and look at it from a supremacist point of view for a moment because it's useful to do so.
• Atheism, for instance, has a higher intellectual potential than something that dogmatically limits its field of inquiry. We have, in the past, argued that atheists are smarter. I actually tend to believe this, but that's my own problem. However, to look at it from the point of view that one group of people might be smarter or superior to another--and I'm not after a provocative point here about people's intelligence--what is the course of action of the Superior? Sparta, for instance? Or something a little more compassionate?
If the smart do not educate the intellectually-challenged, then each new intellectually-challenged person will merely be another drop in a vast ocean of idiocy.
It takes time, I admit. But it can be done.
Self-perpetuating, almost.
Guns are designed to kill things. When they kill the wrong thing or used for the wrong purposes, they're problematic.
Likewise labels. Humans classify and enumerate in order to identify and establish a relationship with a thing in the Universe. To apply classifications wrongly is problematic.
Well, that's the thing. In terms of Sciforums, I'm not sure how many people are still genuinely attempting to communicate. Like classifications, communication is a tool that can be put to wrong use, which is problematic. Some of the posters we've mentioned along the way make that point clear. Much of the "narrowing" going on is an effort to avoid discussion, and seems designed to haul down the basis for communication. I accept the narrowing of a discussion to, for instance, the "Christian god". But I find it quite strange when an atheist is demanding that what I accept as a condition of argument is the atheist's version of God. To me, when I consider the relatively low knowledge many atheists have of religion, it seems a little like my mother trying to explain Satanism or Seventh-Day Adventism to me when I was a child. (She does remember telling me that SDA's were weird, but she doesn't remember telling me that Satanists were bloodthirsty child-stealers. See what happens when you lie to a child?)
What it ends up looking like is people arguing against each other's existence. It's kind of strange that way. I expect a religious person to narrow a given discussion to first his or her general paradigm (e.g. Christianity, Wicca, &c.) and then even further to a localized paradigm, and then even further to the personal paradigm. And I expect that religious person at that point to forget that other people are not him or her and cannot see the same thing in the same way.
Because it's part of the result of religion. That narrow focus is part of the religious execution.
I've said a lot of things about atheism in my time, but its biggest betrayal, the reason for my outright distaste, is that it further narrowed my perspective of the world. And this wasn't a condition of the word itself, any more than Sunday is the real Christian sabbath. Like I've always said, it was about other atheists and integrity. Now, that's not quite a swipe.
But a certain fundamental personal integrity was gone. I gave up religion when I was younger because I thought being an atheist would broaden my horizons, increase my knowledge, and spread my compassion. My perspective narrowed, and knowledge and compassion evaporated. It happens. Basically, there was no integrity among the atheists I knew. Nor is that a swipe.
What disturbs me most is the general lack of that integrity around here. And you can take that as a swipe if you want. But it's the whole reason I'm stomping around in my clodhoppers these days. It's getting so narrow in the Religion forum my head's about to burst like a zit.
I personally think this is because nobody is willing to discuss the same topic. In other words, everyone has too narrow an idea of what is involved with the topic.
Does anyone remember the minor archetype in movie sages, the irrelevant wise man who tells stories that seem to have nothing to do with the crisis playing out? Did anyone ever learn anything from the mysterious wisemen? I would hope so, since so many people seem to admire them; I know philosophers who discuss philosophy for the rush they get from sounding so confusing to other people--it's kind of funny; they'll only discuss philosophy when there's people around to confuse or impress. They all want to be the mysterious wiseman.
Point being that people often just manage to look like the mysterious wiseman; it's too hard for them or not important enough for them to be like the wiseman. It's why Christians resorted to the "WWJD" campaign; some people just wanted to "look" Christian, an age-old problem that I'm quite sure Christ addressed. WWJD: some people had to be reminded of this. Why? Because they had narrowed Christianity too far, just as we often narrow topics too far in our debates.
I just want to double-check: Most people would reject the idea of requiring all members of Sciforums to take the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory and a Rorschach before being allowed to post here, right?
Remember school elections? How you could talk about things, but it works better just to say the issue and throw candy? How firmly they cast and kilned the future Crossfire audience, the future FOX News viewers. And look at the way it works out .... Imagine you're a guest on a FOX News show. And imagine someone says to you: "That's why it's called a missile defense system, silly. So we can have missiles to defend ourselves."
Do you discuss the merits of having missiles to defend ourselves, or do you want to discuss missile defense systems? Would you let the newstalkie set the topic of discussion inappropriately? Perhaps in her individual universe that's what a missile defense system is, but really ....
I don't mind the narrowing of the topic to focus on the issues, but let's bear in mind the general path that takes. I still hope for something better.
Good ... good, good, good.
Okay, I'm with you.
Here's the thing: people aren't refining. Have you noticed that philosophies are getting more simplistic, broader in their vision, and generally weaker and more fanciful? Have you noticed that educational standards are slipping, that the truly bright performers are becoming more rare in important arenas? I'm happy that people are taking a more artistic direction, but a nation of filmmakers cannot grow wheat.
Some of the most intelligent people I know I don't bother talking to. Seriously, it's gotten weird. But it's like watching your hero fall from his prime, in a way. It's sad because this once-great thinker is now sitting there serving you the same kind of horsepucky you can get from the television. When the most part of what people think about is survival, is keeping up, then we're not aiming for progress. I've been critical of atheists that it's enough for them to be "like" or "equal to" religious people in intelligence and maturity and conduct; I've been critical of Christians for saying it's enough for them to be "like" or "equal to" the evil pagans and infidels they criticize.
It's kind of interesting how, as I face fatherhood in a matter of days (3 wks and counting 'til due date), everyone around me is asking me to think of anything but fatherhood. (What's even more bizarre is that list of things that your parents would eventually apologize for? Those "We didn't know" kinds of things? People want me to do all of those wrong things, too, even though I know better. Why? Because it's "normal". You don't want your kid to be singled out and alienated, do you? Okay, I'll stop before I get too far off track, but that's how universal these processes seem to run. It all feels and smells and tastes like the same brand of idiocy, everywhere I turn.
And here at Sciforums we have a chance to do whatever we want, but included in that whatever is the chance to figure out the things that confuse us. That's why I find it so sad that Sciforums is in style and outcome very much a microcosmic representation of reality. We have a chance to escape that microcosm and forge new territory, and hopefully spill that spirit back into our daily lives.
But listen to people: sex, money, and praise for their own sense of humor. There is a presumption that the self cannot be wrong, and any deviation is intentionally hostile toward the self. Take a look around: some of the atheists have more specific descriptions of what God is than the theists, but that's only so they can say it doesn't exist. Well, I can also say that forty-foot purple snails with pink polka-dotted shells that eat exclusively Barbie dolls don't exist.
Those higher orders do come from the basic. But look at the world around you. People do what they have to, not what they want to or what they're good at. Practically speaking, it's inefficient. Metaphysically speaking, it's catastrophic. Theoretically, you spend a third of your life asleep; this is a natural necessity. Theoretically, you spend more than a third of your life at work., Which leaves how much for the eating, cleaning of the self, having a family, ad nauseam? And since people do what they have to, they're not always kindly-disposed toward those things. We see that a key to innovation is time itself; if a man sees a problem, he must think on the solution. If he must devote his thoughts elsewhere, the problem and the solution get put off. So much is dedicated to basic survival when there are ways to reduce the amount of attention the living process requires. Think about the people you know who do something other than what they're truly good at. They're generally unhappy people, aren't they? Like the frustrated musician, working whatever job will pay him, with a "loving family" that would not help him with his education unless he forsakes his music and gets a "real degree for a real job". Or the writers who have to decide to write: there is a joke that the loneliest profession in the world is being a writer's wife. That time has to come somewhere. But what about the useful people? The inventors and designers that have a great idea to offer but they're doing grunt-work to support themselves and thus never develop what could end up changing the world forever. You know, some of the greatest minds in the world are dedicated to making sure you can get a boner at age ninety. I mean, come on: food, sex, entertainment ...
I may like stories, but I can't make a living working for a video store or a cinema or a bookshop. I'd rather write them, but that's a completely messed-up tale for another day.
Get up, go to work, come home, go out and pursue sex.
Get up, go to work, come home, entertain and educate your children.
Get up, go to work ... (fill in the blanks)
Point being, it does not say: Get up, make the world a better place for yourself and others. Or how about: Get up, evolve.
Tragically, it's merely, Get up, sustain, try to keep up.
Human beings have so much potential, yet we worry too much about the "necessary", and invent things to call "necessary" (subjective realities; e.g. religion, nation-identities, &c.).
There's another joke among writers and musicians: When you're starving, insane, and your dog has left you alone because you suck, you're almost there.
Ever wonder why so many artists are hostile snobs? Because they're literally afraid of what the world does to them. They've suffered, they're still insane, and what can you say about a guy whose dog will betray him?
Why is there no new Sistine Chapel? Why is it taking so long for the next Mozart to come along? Whence comes the next generation of greatness? We look down on the patrons of old because they "censored" the art, as such. Yet the art stands out even today, because people had time to do what they were really, really good at. And that's how people got smart enough to have a minor atheistic revolution in the nineteenth century that would pave the way for today's atheists. Just as a for-instance.
That's what I mean. We shouldn't let the mere eating, sleeping, and fucking become the whole of our focus. I'm all for fine dining, but you know ... I'm talking about breadwinning.
Other than another human being, how many tools do you intentionally use for something they're not made for?
And when we start taking more time for the issues and items more important to us as human beings (as opposed to being important to us as persons, as opposed again to being important to us as people ... oh, crap. Anyway ....)
We raised temples to gods, we paid homage to our food, to our lusts ... do you realize how much of the present generation pays tribute to labor and wealth and greed? Really, I'll take rainbows and muses over that, any day. Do you live to work or work to live? All sorts of simple sloganism works here.
It's all a matter of priorities.
I just don't like the feeling that we're settling for something lesser, y'know?
thanx,
Tiassa
kiginally posted by James R [/i]
Lady,
<i>**Monkey? To each his own </i>
Huh? What do you mean by this?
** Not from the monkey lineage.
<
Science itself is a collection of methods and knowledge. It is morally neutral. How it is used is moulded by people's pre-existing moral systems. Religious people misuse science just as often and as much as atheists.
** Science adhering to morally neutral politicians?(he-he) Sounds like comedy night.
** Information Age, Space Exploration, halted? If not a good laugh, perhaps the monkeys can give a logical explanation?
** The majority? Space exploration
Do they? What kind of paranormal occurences? I don't know of any verified cases.
** All kinds in every field, however, verified by The Scientific Method?(fagetaboutit)
Lady,
<i>**Monkey? To each his own </i>
Huh? What do you mean by this?
** Not from the monkey lineage.
<
Science itself is a collection of methods and knowledge. It is morally neutral. How it is used is moulded by people's pre-existing moral systems. Religious people misuse science just as often and as much as atheists.
** Science adhering to morally neutral politicians?(he-he) Sounds like comedy night.
** Information Age, Space Exploration, halted? If not a good laugh, perhaps the monkeys can give a logical explanation?
** The majority? Space exploration
Do they? What kind of paranormal occurences? I don't know of any verified cases.
** All kinds in every field, however, verified by The Scientific Method?(fagetaboutit)