Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.

S.A.M. said:
Back at you buster. Or do you profess knowledge of the damning consequences (or absence thereof) of what you wish to advance?....
Click to expand...


i claim a cautious and hopefully rational synthesis of all histories pertaining to the subject matter. probably incomplete tho easily rectified in a single day.

S.A.M. said:
Back at you buster
Click to expand...


now, nothing escapes my notice. especially one as glaring as your omission of the requested answer to my question

are we playing..."no i asked first"?

oh
my serve has been clocked in 118 mph
you?

ps: i'll touch on the latter part in wee bit :)
 
hahaha, I'm not going to read a 50+ thread
if you dont want to discuss this again, that is fine with me, but if you can't see valid arguments in his speech, you just went wayyy down in my concept
 
Grantywanty said:
I think the best thing for me to say here is that if that is a God, it is not a loving God, it is not God the father, because fathers should not act like that, and I will stand up to that God whatever that means. If I cannot trust my basic gut sense of what love is, well, in the end that is God's fault, he made me. So he will have to live with the consequences of that.

If I cannot trust my gut sense about something so basic, why should I trust some voice in my head that tells me I am evil. YOu see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Of course. But thinking about it some more, I realize this is my basic fear:

That the Universe is evil, or at least chaotic, and that there is no point to human action - ie. that no matter what I do, it won't save me from this evil (or chaos).

And as for God - I yet have to find a description of God that would not be the description of an evil, insane or ultimately powerless God - a God that I just don't want to be with.


And by the way, I really doubt you will somehow go, Yeah, dat guy is right. And leap out bed and not be bothered by this dilemma.
Click to expand...

Now that you say it - As absurd as such a hope is - I actually hope things could be this way. An instant fix. My, how I wish this would be possible. Wake up, smell the coffee and have no problems ...


It is almost like saying you don't believe in agnosticism, but it is the island you swam to not to drown.
Click to expand...

Yes, I perceive it as the less evil of two evil options.
In fact, I think I perceive all choices as choices between greater and lesser evil, not as choices between good and bad.


My point was primarily that you look at what might end up being your belief and say what if that is just conditioning. Well, you are already conditioned. If you really have no mechanism for knowing what is you and yours you would not be in the predicament you are in. You are in that predicament because your gut tells you that Christianity, at least as it has been around you, is not what you want. It took unraveling of conditioning to get you where you are. Your problem is that you can feel the difference, but you are not sure if this makes you evil. If being yourself is evil.
Click to expand...

That's about it, yes.


Thoughts are the most conditioned things. We have had thoughts jammed in our heads from the moment we are born.
And thoughts for an against on any issue look just the same on the page.
We can only make decisions based on how those thoughts feel.
Click to expand...

This seems reasonable, of course. But Christianity has a counterargument against this, something to the effect of "You're just hiding in word games, in relativism, you're just trying to hide from God".
 
Enmos said:
Is Dawkins a threat ?
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that he polarises the people, the same way all extremists do. I consider him as more of a danger to the future of science than anything else. By creating such extreme fissures in society, all he has done is cultivate an anti-science attitude among theists, merely by projecting science as an atheistic enterprise. Moreover, his re-definitions of genetic concepts (through sociobiological and psychological interpretations of biology, sounds kooky even as I say it) has damaged the approach that people have towards biology, as least among those who favor popular science over peer reviewed articles.
 
Varda said:
hahaha, I'm not going to read a 50+ thread
if you dont want to discuss this again, that is fine with me, but if you can't see valid arguments in his speech, you just went wayyy down in my concept
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss.
 
Gustav said:
i claim a cautious and hopefully rational synthesis of all histories pertaining to the subject matter. probably incomplete tho easily rectified in a single day.




now, nothing escapes my notice. especially one as glaring as your omission of the requested answer to my question

are we playing..."no i asked first"?

oh
my serve has been clocked in 118 mph
you?

ps: i'll touch on the latter part in wee bit :)
Click to expand...


Synthesis of histories? You mean what people tole you happened? Go back to the all day sucker and ignore the reality of whats all around you.
 
S.A.M. said:
Only in the sense that he polarises the people, the same way all extremists do. I consider him as more of a danger to the future of science than anything else. By creating such extreme fissures in society, all he has done is cultivate an anti-science attitude among theists, merely by projecting science as an atheistic enterprise. Moreover, his re-definitions of genetic concepts (through sociobiological and psychological interpretations of biology, sounds kooky even as I say it) has damaged the approach that people have towards biology, as least among those who favor popular science over peer reviewed articles.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right, I haven't really looked into his claims yet.
Sciforums also polarizes people though..
 
S.A.M. said:
Moreover, his re-definitions of genetic concepts (through sociobiological and psychological interpretations of biology, sounds kooky even as I say it) has damaged the approach that people have towards biology, as least among those who favor popular science over peer reviewed articles.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then real scientists need to clean up the mess and clear science's reputation.
 
Enmos said:
Maybe you are right, I haven't really looked into his claims yet.
Sciforums also polarizes people though..
Click to expand...

Does it? I don't think so. I think people have a chance here of reading what the other side has to say.

Needless to say, the ignorance on both sides is abysmal. ;)
 
greenberg said:
Yes, and then real scientists need to clean up the mess and clear science's reputation.
Click to expand...

Do they even bother? Most of them just cluck over it and overlook it or grumble among themselves; if you've been around this board, you'll have noticed that scientists are a major casualty.
 
S.A.M. said:
Does it? I don't think so. I think people have a chance here of reading what the other side has to say.

Needless to say, the ignorance on both sides is abysmal. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, you see people on both 'sides' get into fights on a regular basis. I don't think that brings them closer together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top