September 15th, 2008, 06:11 AM
Do you think that one day, the world will be without religion and without control of the masses? Where the vatican can't say jump to make us question how high we should jump?
I don't know. I just don't understand how people can allow themselves to be manipulated and who don't realize how controlling the church really is.
Can someone help me with this? It really makes no sense.
September 15th, 2008, 08:59 AM
Religion gets all the blame for all this manipulation, but really everything we see and experience manipulates us to some degree!Originally Posted by verzen
The bastard politicians and law makers (scuze language but they annoy me) are the greatest manipulators and have the most power and they make the people jump en-masse when they increase taxes and control inflation. To them we are like cockroaches in a moveable maze who's routes and decisions are governed by them deciding which tunnels are open today.
Religion is very complicated, because most religions are intertwined within a culture and therefore being part of that culture automatically makes you part of it's religion. Even our so called 'free society' in the west is manipulated by our cultural beliefs and indoctrination.
To add to what absum said, I suspect we will not have a world of humans without religion altogether - too many of us are too inclined to that point of view to allow it.
Now if that sounds condescending in any way, I might just as well have said: I don't think we will have a world of humans without forgiveness altogether - too many of us are too inclined to that point of view to allow it.
This really bothers you verzen. I mean REALLY bothers you. I mean I believe that religion should not have absoulte control because that is wrong. But what you suggest and talk about at times borders fanatscism. God (no pun intended) help us if you, Q and pavlos got together. You'd be a match for Jeremeyhfht.
I doubt it, one day we might meet a super dimensional entity in space that alters our perception of time and reality. And thus (by what I just said I don't mean intelligent, I mean entity as in something that exists), we could be doomed to repeat history.Do you think that one day, the world will be without religion and without control of the masses?
I doubt he can tell most arabic countries what to do.Where the vatican can't say jump to make us question how high we should jump?
I agree, its madness. But yet they do, maybe they are just lost and weak and want to be flocked without doing anything on their own. Thats why we have to be nice to them and help show them the truth.I don't know. I just don't understand how people can allow themselves to be manipulated and who don't realize how controlling the church really is.
Make sense? I believe in God, yet what I just said makes no sense to my belief. Try and make sense of that, and in honesty, sense is made when you don't make it.Can someone help me with this? It really makes no sense.
Religion will never dissapear. Neither will atheism.
I for one am in the former camp.
Absolutely, organized religion will one day go the way of the dodo. Surely, mankind cannot remain in a state of arrested development forever.
Relativity Q, relativity. One thing replaces another. Just takes a new generation to see that.
verzen asked?
The reason it does not make sense to you, verzen, is because that is not the way things are.Do you think that one day, the world will be without religion and without control of the masses? Where the vatican can't say jump to make us question how high we should jump?
I don't know. I just don't understand how people can allow themselves to be manipulated and who don't realize how controlling the church really is.
Can someone help me with this? It really makes no sense.
First of all, the Pope does not ask people to jump and obtain a response of how high on the way up. Roman Catholics, especially those in developed countries, practice birth control and get divorced all the time which is in direct conflict with the teachings of the church. It is pretty difficult to claim such people are being manipulated and controlled by the church.
I think you would find a far greater influence exerted by the Ayatollahs and Imams in the religion of Islam than you will find in any other religion. You might also consider how Hitler and Stalin and Mao controlled their masses and they were not even following any sort of religion. In fact, they were trying supress religion.
History and actual events show that your premise is flawed and that is why it "really makes no sense."
I always seem to hate it when people bring up athiests and say, "Well, they were trying to suppress religion and they wern't religious!"
It's not the same...
When the pope commanded peasents to go on a crusade, what do you think happened? They went on a crusade to battle Islam. Was this for a religious reason? Yes, they wanted to take over a stupid town that shared similarities with holy grounds of the Islamic faith. Now with Islam, they convince people to blow each other up for their religion, again, another religious reasoning.
However, what Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did was NOT religious in any sense, it was controlling the general public through fear and ambiguity.
The two can't really be compared, it's like arguing that since I don't have a certain belief, than everything is the fault of my non belief. Which doesn't make any sense at all.
Besides, (((FUN FACT))) Hitler considered himself Christian.
It is an unfortunate circumstance that many will never become un-yoked from the traditions of their forefathers, perpetuating a chaotic state that is applicable to most monotheistic religions. They have become the culmination of their own dogma and politics.
This is the 21st Century yet many religious beliefs are still back in the Stone Age. Fear is a dominant factor in crowd control. We have outgrown beliefs in various gods, it is now time to outgrow belief in a God who controls, condemns and physically or spiritually punishes those who do not do his bidding.
September 25th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Mind your own business. You will be much happier that way, and so will the religious.
September 25th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Right on...do as you're told and leave the thinking to your superiors.
September 25th, 2008, 05:44 PM
But Harold didn't say that. In fact, he didn't even imply it. He said "Mind your own business", nothing more, nothing less. Of course, you're free to interpret anything to fit your agenda, whatever that might be.Right on...do as you're told and leave the thinking to your superiors.
Some people choose to follow religious doctrines, and as long as they don't go around pushing this doctrine down on others we might as well leave them alone and let them do as they wish.
September 25th, 2008, 05:56 PM
I apologize to Harold and agree...if everyone would mind their own business, we could all be blissful...though sadly we do not live in heaven.But Harold didn't say that. In fact, he didn't even imply it. He said "Mind your own business", nothing more, nothing less.Right on...do as you're told and leave the thinking to your superiors.
September 26th, 2008, 03:48 AM
Well i agree with the lets all 'mind our own business' idea!I apologize to Harold and agree...if everyone would mind their own business, we could all be blissful...though sadly we do not live in heaven.But Harold didn't say that. In fact, he didn't even imply it. He said "Mind your own business", nothing more, nothing less.Right on...do as you're told and leave the thinking to your superiors.
Yet there are certain circumstances when it is good to interfere even if it is to protest and sign petitions against the abuse of fellow men and women in certain parts of the globe.
But i do disagree about the 'not living in heaven' statement.
Heaven and Hell are simply ideas about a state of existence, and i think this idea is more applicable to life in the flesh than when we're dead and buried.
We are far more capable in the flesh to choose in which realm we live whilst here alive and kicking on earth.
Mind your own business?
Well, what if you think your business is to tell others about getting themselves right with God by accepting forgiveness from Jesus Christ?
What if you think it is your business to tell others that they are foolish to believe in creationism or God or a non-physical beings?
I happen to believe it is my business to point out errors of fact and errors of logic which are posted here. So if you want me to mind my own business, you can aid me in that endeavor by checking out your facts before you post and by analyzing your opinions to see if they are actually logical when compared to reality.
And what if you think it's your business to erradicate all people who are not of the aryan race? I'd say we'd have to put you down before you hurt someone.
The point is... mind your own business and don't force your beliefs upon others.
September 26th, 2008, 12:01 PM
If only the religious would mind their own business, but unfortunately, that isn't the case as I dole out my tax dollars to pay for their tax free churches and temples. We have to put up with their injecting god fantasies into our government, social and economic decision making processes.
The deluded might think it's their business to propagate their fantasies to others, which is fine, as long as they keep it behind closed doors and not promote their nonsense in public.
Is your god a fact?I happen to believe it is my business to point out errors of fact and errors of logic which are posted here.
September 26th, 2008, 01:01 PM
Not in the USA. The way I understand it, even Europeans have the option of opting out of supporting churches. What country are you in?If only the religious would mind their own business, but unfortunately, that isn't the case as I dole out my tax dollars to pay for their tax free churches and temples. We have to put up with their injecting god fantasies into our government, social and economic decision making processes.
Obviously wrote:
Hmmmm. Isn't that what you are doing in this statement? Is it not your belief that we should not force our beliefs on others? And are you not trying to force that belief on me? So it is perfectly OK for you to try to force your beliefs on me, but I cannot tell you about my beliefs because they disturb you.The point is... mind your own business and don't force your beliefs upon others.
What you are really saying is, "Do not mess with my beliefs even if they are wrong."
September 26th, 2008, 01:54 PM
Especially in the USA. I see oceans of churches and temples littering the landscape, taking up valuable real estate with grotesque buildings and parking lots, used periodically to gather the masses for re-indoctrination. And, I have to pay for it all with my taxes while they operate tax free, while raking in millions.
(Q) said:
No one who posts on this forum is as good at promoting their deluded nonsense as is (Q). Heal thyself, nonsense promoter.The deluded might think it's their business to propagate their fantasies to others, which is fine, as long as they keep it behind closed doors and not promote their nonsense in public.
September 26th, 2008, 02:08 PM
The gullible are easily fleeced...but you are NOT paying for it with YOUR taxes.Especially in the USA...And I have to pay for it all with my taxes while they operate tax free, while raking in millions.
This is an open forum... We're supposed to discuss and express our opinions here... Go away or ignore me if you feel uncomfortable with my viewpoints...
Obviously said:
This is an open forum... We're supposed to discuss and express our opinions here... Go away or ignore me if you feel uncomfortable with my viewpoints...
Obviously had previously said:
I just don't see how these two statements are compatible.The point is... mind your own business and don't force your beliefs upon others.
If one is suppose to mind his own business and not force his beliefs on others; how do you propose to maintain an open forum where people are able to express and discuss their opinions?
How do you have an open forum if everybody agrees on everything and the people who disagree are suppose to keep their keyboard locked and their opinions and beliefs to themselves.
To be honest, Obvioulsy, I have never suggested that those who disagree with me should be silenced. It only gives me further opportunity to show them where they are wrong. If you do not like to be shown where you are wrong, it is up to you whether you post.
And you are wrong on this.
I'll help you understand: neither me nor you force eachother to be here and listening to eachother. There is no forcing here. This is the internet.
Obviously said:
But you have still not explained why when I express my (usually supported) opinions, it is attempting to force others while when you (and others of your viewpoint) express your opinions, it is free discussion.I'll help you understand: neither me nor you force eachother to be here and listening to eachother. There is no forcing here. This is the internet.
Dear me....you need some sort of outlet Dayton
As for pointing out facts - what facts?
Errors of logic? - based on your own logic - who's reality and what facts?
Yours?
I haven't said that. I'm sorry if that's what you think I implied.
I'm afraid that seems to be a habit of DaytonsI haven't said that. I'm sorry if that's what you think I implied.
To imply imagine, speculate, put words into people mouths and then base his judgments on these instead of listening to what people are actually saying and he accuses others of not thinking and being over-imaginative, unrealistic and irrational, it makes discussions very difficult. :?
September 27th, 2008, 10:22 AM
Uh, yes I am, as is everyone else. We all pay the taxes which religious institutes do not pay. I for one am appalled at that, and want something done about it. Unfortunately, religious freedom has me handcuffed into paying.
It's a kind of extortion.
I had said:
Absum replied:I happen to believe it is my business to point out errors of fact
Well, you are right, that is a problem when most of the atheists here are in the habit of expressing opinions which are not backed by facts and attempting to pass those opinions off as facts.As for pointing out facts - what facts?
Absum further said:
This seems to be a common flaw among certain posters here in that they feel that when they imply something, they are able to deny having said it because this did not explicitly make that statement.I'm afraid that seems to be a habit of DaytonsObviously wrote:
I haven't said that. I'm sorry if that's what you think I implied.daytonturner wrote:
But you have still not explained why when I express my (usually supported) opinions, it is attempting to force others while when you (and others of your viewpoint) express your opinions, it is free discussion.
To imply imagine, speculate, put words into people mouths and then base his judgments on these instead of listening to what people are actually saying and he accuses others of not thinking and being over-imaginative, unrealistic and irrational, it makes discussions very difficult.
It all goes back to the idea that people should "mind their own business" while participating in an open forum which, to me, are diametrically opposed ideas.
And those other ideas flow from that: 1. You can participate as long as you do not disagree; 2. If you express religious ideas you are forcing your beliefs on others, but if you express non religious ideas, you are merely discussing.
The thing is, you do not see the religious people who post here telling the atheist people to mind their own business. It is not the religious people who attempt to suppress the ideas of others. This is the tactic of those who attempt to squelch the religious message.
I agree.
September 27th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Albert Einstein said, “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
I hereto add...Transcendology.
September 29th, 2008, 04:40 PM
How much do churches cost each year in tax money lost? How much tax money would they provide if they were taxed?Uh, yes I am, as is everyone else. We all pay the taxes which religious institutes do not pay. I for one am appalled at that, and want something done about it. Unfortunately, religious freedom has me handcuffed into paying.
It's a kind of extortion.
Most churches don't make money, they aren't in the business to do that, they are too small.
September 29th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Kkawohl: i've never heard of transcendology. I searched the web, but the only links i've found are all links to your forum posts and your profiles on various sites. There are wiki entries, which you could've written. Are you trying to start a religious movement?
September 30th, 2008, 10:08 AM
That's not a very funny joke. Hundreds of millions of dollars are taken in every year by religions, and they don't have to report a cent, while hundreds of millions of dollar are lost each year in property taxes.
Move out of your parents basement and start paying taxes.
September 30th, 2008, 10:09 AM
Please don't insult the legacy of Einstein with your god fantasies.
October 1st, 2008, 10:03 AM
The fight is not so much against religion as it is against Nature.
While the OT teaches 'hate' with its sexism and racism, Nature teaches love with its creation of life.
Also, there is a war going on against Nature with its promotion of drugs as healing agents when the Natural medicines are superior and being pushed aside, our Natural air conditioners (trees) are being destroyed, Natural heterosexual sex is being outlawed, various species being harvested to virtual extinctions and numerous other such reasons as deteriating quality of our clean air and water.
Cosmo
October 1st, 2008, 10:26 AM
Who's outlawing 'natural heterosexual sex'?
October 1st, 2008, 04:54 PM
No new religion, just an attempt at overhauling oxymoronic religious beliefs that are tied to superstitions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). If transcendology is accepted by monotheistic religions, they become "rational religions".
October 1st, 2008, 05:05 PM
Remember...god is whatever one wants it to be...transcendology is natural spirituality.Please don't insult the legacy of Einstein with your god fantasies.
IMHO Einstein’s statement “And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life" refutes a personal God, which logic and rationality supports.
Einstein also said that "God" may very well be the "energy" that is in all matter and energy, that cannot be separated from matter/energy. I submit that God is the cause of matter/energy.
- - E
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
- - E, Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
The aspects of God which he rejects seem often to surface in the word "anthropomorphic" - human-like. His God, rather, seemed to be an "intelligence" or "superior reasoning power" which was behind the laws and harmonies of the universe.
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
- - E, Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929; [pg.147, Calaprice]. (Spinoza believed the more one studies and understands the universe the better one understands God)
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. "
- - Albert Einstein
"[The scientists'] religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
- - E
"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
October 1st, 2008, 05:30 PM
No, you just replace one set of superstitions with another. There's nothing rational about transcendology at all, it's complete fantasy.
October 1st, 2008, 05:31 PM
Yes, and please remember you've been asked to demonstrate your god, which you've failed to do so far.
October 1st, 2008, 06:13 PM
NO ONE can demonstrate God...God is spirit and does not physically exist in the natural universe.Yes, and please remember you've been asked to demonstrate your god, which you've failed to do so far.
October 1st, 2008, 06:20 PM
How do you know he/she/it exists then?NO ONE can demonstrate God...God is spirit and does not physically exist in the natural universe.Yes, and please remember you've been asked to demonstrate your god, which you've failed to do so far.
October 1st, 2008, 06:48 PM
One can "believe" that God exists because it has been demonstrated to his spirit...this is then translated by a conditioned fallible mind...hence you have various religions.How do you know he/she/it exists then?NO ONE can demonstrate God...God is spirit and does not physically exist in the natural universe.Yes, and please remember you've been asked to demonstrate your god, which you've failed to do so far.
Only your spirit/mind/consciousness can "KNOW" that God exists...the brain can never "know that God exists"....God is spirit
What is your evidence for the human spirit separate from mind?
What is your evidence for the human mind separate from body?
This has been discussed in "How do you explain NDE and OBE"
http://www.thescienceforum.com/How-d...OBE-14433t.php
October 2nd, 2008, 06:14 AM
In plain language, prostitution is outlawed here in the U S and other areas.
This is man and woman. so what are these bigots promoting if this is wrong?
Homosexuality or masterbation?
Cosmo
It might have been discussed, but that doesn't answer the questions, where is your evidence, you have yet to supply any, either here or on that thread.This has been discussed in "How do you explain NDE and OBE"
http://www.thescienceforum.com/How-d...OBE-14433t.php
Forgive me Ophiolite, I'll ask those questions again to kkawohl.
What or where is your evidence for the human spirit separate from mind?
What or where is your evidence for the human mind separate from body?
October 2nd, 2008, 08:30 AM
Then, god is simply a creation from your imagination. You should have just said that from the get go.
It might have been discussed, but that doesn't answer the questions, where is your evidence, you have yet to supply any, either here or on that thread.This has been discussed in "How do you explain NDE and OBE"
http://www.thescienceforum.com/How-d...OBE-14433t.php
Forgive me Ophiolite, I'll ask those questions again to kkawohl.
What or where is your evidence for the human spirit separate from mind?
What or where is your evidence for the human mind separate from body?
Some people might say that they can imagine a part of themselves extending much further than the body....which they might call spirit.....and this part feels to them very real, as real as we might judge our everyday sense of self as real....such as might be the case in astral projection, which has been discussed previously.
Some mystics talk about an experience where an expansion of consciousness overrides individuality and where no thought exists because a mind does not exist for a thought to occur....and in those instances they may say the spirit has separated from body and mind.
But of course....being exclusively scientifically minded and having no room for such concepts you will no doubt poo-pooh it and say....
"The person is just imagining it and it is not real" or "the mind is delusional and fooling itself" and that's a fair comment because everyone wants proof and 'seeing is believing'?
Well then my answer to you is....when you see in order to believe how do know the eyes aren't deluding or fooling you? In fact in this case it would be the brain that was fooling you, because the brain 'sees' the eyes are simply an apparatus to facilitate this, and ultimately it is the brain which furthers it's investigations to 'make sense' of what it's seeing.
So it all boils down to the brain and in all the scenarios above the brain could very easily be fooling itself.
How do we know that what we see and feel is really there at all? Including and especially based on the evidence of seeing is believing and trusting our brains to make sense of it according to the reality we think we might know.
Even science depends on the observer having a belief in a certain reality, but the type of reality on offer depends on the viewer who perceives.
But we can never be absolutely sure of it's truth or certainty...and that's the case with all we imagine might be real as well as what we imagine might not be real
So back to religion
We talk about faith and belief
Faith and belief have become dirty words in the vocabulary of science.
We must know.....for certain.... the mantra goes.....
But don't you see that all of us, including scientists, build our world view on faith and belief.
We don't want to have brains that fool or delude us.....but we can never be absolutely certain that they aren't... (peoples brains fool & delude them all the time without them even being aware of this! Even what we might call sane * mentally healthy people get deluded and duped by the mind)....so we have faith that our brains are working ok and therefore so is our perception and sense. But it is based on faith.
Then from this faith we have belief in the reality around us.......but we cannot even be absolutely certain that this is 'real' just as we cannot be certain our brains are not deluding us.
Because we perceive this world through the filter of our brains. Therefore we must believe it to exist and believe it is 'real'. It is not based on certainty.
Ah.... machines in science which can monitor and measure would be a good argument to counteract this argument.....but still we use the brain to take information from these machines and our brains process this date, so again we are relying on something which we cannot be absolutely certain about and therefore is based on faith.......... and then there is another matter of having faith in the machine to work properly and give us the proper data and so on and so on........
When you seriously look into the depths of anything you will see that nothing is really certain and practically everything in our limited human perception is ultimately based on faith and belief.
And science has the nerve to discredit anyone who bases their lives on faith & belief.
Logical analysis...there can never be proof what the mind or spirit has experienced.
When someone's spirit interacts with the spiritual existence, as written in books, there is no proof, and had I not personally experienced it I also would have doubts of its validity...then the conditioned, fallible mind interprets it; hence you have various religions.
But we can be 99.99999999% sure, due to objective evidence, our five senses. Yes I cannot be sure that the red I see is the same red you see, but due to objective evidence, I can know, not believe, but know. When you see, touch, smell, and taste an orange, I will agree with your description. Objective: of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
But we as you say can never be sure of any truth, when it comes too our subjective imaginations, when you imagine a god, or anything for that matter. And I do mean imagine, what you think it looks like and what I think it looks like, are two completely different things. As we have no way of using any of our senses to verify it's existence.
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
One scientific way would be.
Someone is in one room physicaly but spiritualy in other rooms.
If the guy on his come back would be able to relate what happend or what was said in other isolated rooms in specific detail than the experience would be concluding.
So far, I heard that people had this experience but never found any proof.
So it remains purely imaginative until proven so.
No we cannot even be 99.999999999999999% sure. Where did you get that figure from? It is nonsense. There is no scientific proof that we can be even that amount sure. And in this instance the brain is again fooling you because you want to believe that we can be that sure of our reality. This is the unfortunate tendency of the brain and one that science is now taking into account from it's recently acquired evidence based on quantum theories.But we can be 99.99999999% sure, due to objective evidence, our five senses.
Many past scientific experiments that appeared correct and infallible were wrong because of this. Miscalculations were made because the scientists influenced the experiment by expecting a particular outcome, and the scientists was unaware on a conscious level that this had even occurred.
I am glad you have brought up the notions of objectivity and subjectivity because this is where it becomes even more fun.
Again you are basing faith in objects which appear external to you and belief in your capabilities of being able to perceive and experience them correctly, as well as putting faith in other people to perceive and experience them correctly.
But here already there is some confusion between subjective & objective and the boundaries between them become blurred.
For example - when you stand in front of a picture on a wall or stare at an orange on a desk and look at it with your eyes you will say that it is an object which exists outside your body, but it is not, if we are going to be scientific here, then what is occurring is a picture illuminated by photons and light-waves giving it the realistic impression of having dimensions which is being projected onto the back of your retina which is then processed into information by the brain.
So therefore my question is - is this object existing outside you or inside?
And still we are relying upon the brain to process the data correctly, which can only be based on faith and not any real measurable certainty that it is.
You will say that we have the faculty of touch to reinforce the evidence.
But even touch has to be processed through the brain.
How do you know without doubt that the brain isn't fooling you about touch?
If i see a piece of hard shiny metal, instantly my mind is already biased and prejudice about what i will experience when i reach out to touch it.
If i see what appears to my mind as a cold frosty day outside i will wrap up expecting it to be cold and frosty.
How much does our brain influence what we perceive & experience?
I think if we are going to be rational and logical then it is reasonable to state that the ideas of subjective & objective are not as clearly defined as we think.
If we want to seriously discover what reality is then it is clear that using these definitions to describe subjective & objective phenomena & experience is a mistake.
You have to recognize that the mind is highly susceptible to deluding itself through concepts and theories by shaping it's reality to fit these ideas and beliefs. And even what we call 'evidence' is on shaky ground when the boundaries of subjective & objective become blurred.
You state that we can verify external reality based on our shared senses. Well that theory collapses somewhat when i am standing beside someone who is colour blind and we are looking at the sea. It also collapses if someone can tolerate more pain than me, i will say "Ouch that hurts" and they will say " You big baby, that doesn't hurt at all!" Someone who loves the cold and someone who hates it will have different experiences of the same thing.
Remember we may use the same terminology to describe a similar experience but it can never be verified as being the same.
If i was an alien without this terminology or the understanding of the nature of these experiences how would you describe the experiences to me in order for me to understand. You would place my fingers in a bowl of freezing water and say "cold" but i might experience a sensation totally different to you, and that sensation will be labeled cold, but to say it is the same as your sensation of cold is wrong.
All we are relying on shared terminology to describe a similar experience, but then you will say one day " Gosh it's freezing" and i might reply " Actually i was thinking how mild it was"
Because all these experiences and sensations is being processed through that wonderful grey matter in the top of our heads.
So what exactly is objective and what is subjective?
Excellent! Ok here's another question for you then
If all these experiences of the external and ideas of subject and object in reality are simply theories and terminology and are on shaky ground when analysed rationally how do i know what is really real? And how do I know what is imagined?
And what exactly do i mean by real? That which exists external to me? I can't prove that it does, because all the processes in order to perceive a thing occur inside of me
As i have stated we cannot be absolutely certain even with our senses that we can verify we are experiencing the same thing.
Scientists and rationalist and logicians have a tendency to separate & compartmentalize phenomena as it does with subjective & objective, and it has a tendency to dismiss the imagination as unreliable in discerning reality.
This is a mistake. As i have proved above, imagination is inseparable from our perception. Because every single iota of experience, sensation, view of what we call reality is processed through the brain and is then imaged and imagined.
Our imaginations determine ultimately what it is we will experience. Much of our experiences are processed through stored data of what we have experienced before and so the imagination is called upon to recall the experience and imagine it again.
And as any autobiographer or historian will tell you, memory is one of the most unreliable sources of information. The brain distorts memories over time until you get something akin to a chinese whisper.
This statement here
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
is utterly meaningless. It's nonsense. All things exist in the mind!
Belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought?
Confusing terminology which becomes meaningless on closer inspection!
An interesting experiment carried out in hypnosis where the person hypnotized was instructed to imagine a particular experience that they hadn't experienced before. Under a brain scan afterwards when those experiences were related by the person hypnotized, the same parts of the brain were activated as if had they been relating a memory.
Another thought about the idea of God.
If everything we call real ultimately relies on the brain to perceive and process it and therefore depends on the imagination to imagine it. And even imagining something can make it appear real, and as we know reality is not really clearly defined as we imagine.
Then if i imagine a God, and i see a picture clearly in my minds eye how real based on the foundations of reality we have just discussed, is this God?
Why does the supernatural in general depend so much on the stolen concept fallacy? I mean, it is a fallacy after all.I just don't get it.
The Stolen Concept Fallacy provides a good argument to my argument about uncertaintyWhy does the supernatural in general depend so much on the stolen concept fallacy? I mean, it is a fallacy after all.
But still it does not provide any evidence for certainty. All it does is dismiss the argument of uncertainty by using concepts and references to 'old mystics'
Here's a quote from this article -
'The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends'
Science and rational inquiry into the nature of reality and truth does this all the time when it denies and undermines the participation of imagination.
It takes for granted that there is an objective and subjective world, but on further logical analysis, it's not as 'cut & dry' as that. It also takes for granted that we can depend on our senses to give us the truth. And as I have discussed before, there is no certainty whatsoever that they do!
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/cata...n_concept.html
Probably the same reason science depends so much on logical positivism without taking into account the fallibility of human perception to know the truth about reality through empiricism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
You are not serious are you! do you seriously think we live in the Matrix.No we cannot even be 99.999999999999999% sure. Where did you get that figure from? It is nonsense. There is no scientific proof that we can be even that amount sure. And in this instance the brain is again fooling you because you want to believe that we can be that sure of our reality.But we can be 99.99999999% sure, due to objective evidence, our five senses.Let's put it another way I and most sensible people can be 99.9999999999% sure as we know we don't live in the Matrix.So what your saying, If I point at a brown wooden chair, you'll see it as a yellow plastic bucket, or something else entirely.I am glad you have brought up the notions of objectivity and subjectivity because this is where it becomes even more fun.
Again you are basing faith in objects which appear external to you and belief in your capabilities of being able to perceive and experience them correctly, as well as putting faith in other people to perceive and experience them correctly.
Oh and incidentally I have knowledge not faith that I see a chair, other sensible people can verify it is a brown wooden chair, as they have this knowledge too.
You see they have this strange ability to use there senses, to discern what they can see, touch, smell, taste and hear.How so, lol.Yes, my eyes could be deceiving me, so in order to verify what I see, I walk up and touch it, it has a pitted surface, smells zesty, and if I squish it makes a squelchy sound, and it taste so tangy. Perhaps I just imagined I ate it.Out, as I've just verified it using my other sense.
Oh and inside too, as I just ate it, lol.If I’m in a dark room, I have to rely on my other sense, so if I feel something cold and metallic I first use my knowledge of things cold and metallic, and then I'm able to verify it with my other available senses, I.e., if I hit it, it make a clanging sound or a dinging sound, if I smell it, it has a tinny smell, and if I put my tongue on it, it taste tinny to. Thus I can know it is a piece of metal, but whether it was shiny that one would remain unknown as the room is dark.Ah but they are. Unless you can show how anything subjective, which cannot have any effect whatsoever on any of the senses, could be anything other then what you have imagined.I'll think about that next time I have Roast Beef and Yorkshire pudding for lunch, cause I might be wrong according to you I could be eating a sheet of paper and a stone, or again something completely different entirely.
That is why hard evidence is so important when distinguishing between what can be observed as opposed to a mental illness, vivid imaginations, delusions or a combination of all.
You may have experienced something, but since you've already stated emphatically that "there can never be proof" then you are contradicting yourself. You yourself cannot be certain you have proof distinguishable from delusion or mental illness. If you claim your mind is fallible, then so are your conclusions.When someone's spirit interacts with the spiritual existence, as written in books, there is no proof, and had I not personally experienced it I also would have doubts of its validity...then the conditioned, fallible mind interprets it; hence you have various religions.
Every mind is fallible...except yours.If you claim your mind is fallible, then so are your conclusions.
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Nowhere did I state my worldview is based on so-called "spiritual experiences." You seem to be under the delusion that your personal god fantasies have anything to do with me or anyone else. They are strictly yours.
What is seriously fallible is your thinly veiled and weak arguments usually backed up by the same bizarre source; Urantia. Your fringe cult has you brainwashed, Kurt.
I keep telling you it's not Urantia, it's the edited "Urantia United Book"...which is a story book for inspiration...in the same way as other "Holy Books" are...my convictions are purely based on spirituality and transcendology.the statement is in response to your quote "If you claim your mind is fallible, then so are your conclusions."
What is seriously fallible is your thinly veiled and weak arguments usually backed up by the same bizarre source; Urantia. Your fringe cult has you brainwashed, Kurt.
Our senses are adapt to this world through evolution (unless you don't believe in evolution), and even though limited, our perception has expanded greatly thanks to technology (thermographic camera, telescopes, etc).
The beautiful thing about the scientific method is the way it goes around the problem of confirmation bias by often assuming what we percieve to be wrong. Indeed, how ever would we know about illusions by now? Things that stand still, but yet seems to move for example:
I agree that there's always uncertainty, but to what degree that uncertainty is matters quite. By now we do know a lot about how our brain functions and interprets the world (through rigorous testing throughout the ages), thus our certainty on what is real and what is not can be quite clear. All we need is basically:
- Observation
- Hypothesis
- Experiment
The problem with the supernatural goes more on definition and logical consequences which in turn determins a certain degree of probability to the claim. Given the nature of the definition (being very vague and committing the stolen concept fallacy) its uncertainty outweights that of certainty. In fact, I would argue that the uncertainty is large enough to dismiss the supernatural all together. It makes it self clear on the fact that "beyond" nature is actually self-contradictory, which is also part of the reason for the confusion about reality and fantasy/existence and nonexsistence. One interesting question might shed light on the paradox:
Is it even remotely possible to imagine something without using knowledge/experience already known/present?
Everything is relative, or so it seems. :P
Yes, based on fantasy and superstition, I know. I've already copy/pasted one of your stories here in which the person who wrote it is either mentally unstable or completely deluded and brainwashed. It is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.
You really must stop portraying your ignorance....It is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. "
- - Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein didn't go around starting cults. If you say 'transcendology' ten times fast, it sounds like you're saying 'branch davidians'.
Logical fallacy - appeal to authority.You really must stop portraying your ignorance....It is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. "
- - Albert Einstein
You are using two quotes, and as such quote mining to intimate this is Einstein's complete view.
In a letter to Eric Gutkind in 1954 Einstein said: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
His friend Max Jammer explored Einstein's views on religion thoroughly in the 1999 book Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology.
Not sure why people always try and prove that scientists are believers. It's kind of an insult to true believers, if you're suggesting that scientific faith is somehow of more worth than the usual blind variety.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" (Albert Einstein, 1954)
[quote="susan"]Not scientific faith; not a belief in man-made God; not religion; not irrational faith, JUST PLAIN SPIRITUALITY, that is transcendology; which Q can't comprehend.You really must stop portraying your ignorance....It is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.
Not sure why people always try and prove that scientists are believers. It's kind of an insult to true believers, if you're suggesting that scientific faith is somehow of more worth than the usual blind variety.
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein)
I want to start my own cult too. I'm going to call it 'vandammedology'. Every sunday, we'll astral travel to jean-claude's house and then sit around watching 'kickboxer'.
Thanks for that ObviouslyOur senses are adapt to this world through evolution (unless you don't believe in evolution), and even though limited, our perception has expanded greatly thanks to technology (thermographic camera, telescopes, etc).
The beautiful thing about the scientific method is the way it goes around the problem of confirmation bias by often assuming what we percieve to be wrong. Indeed, how ever would we know about illusions by now? Things that stand still, but yet seems to move for example:
I agree that there's always uncertainty, but to what degree that uncertainty is matters quite. By now we do know a lot about how our brain functions and interprets the world (through rigorous testing throughout the ages), thus our certainty on what is real and what is not can be quite clear. All we need is basically:
- Observation
- Hypothesis
- Experiment
The problem with the supernatural goes more on definition and logical consequences which in turn determins a certain degree of probability to the claim. Given the nature of the definition (being very vague and committing the stolen concept fallacy) its uncertainty outweights that of certainty. In fact, I would argue that the uncertainty is large enough to dismiss the supernatural all together. It makes it self clear on the fact that "beyond" nature is actually self-contradictory, which is also part of the reason for the confusion about reality and fantasy/existence and nonexsistence. One interesting question might shed light on the paradox:
Is it even remotely possible to imagine something without using knowledge/experience already known/present?
Everything is relative, or so it seems. :P
It's reassuring to know that there are pockets of sanity here!
Yes i do believe in the process of evolution.
And I am a great believer in rationalism & being reasonable.
But i think we have to take into account the uncertainty element if only to remain balanced and 'reasonable' if we want to truly know and be as close to reality as possible.
If we don't then we run the risk of unbalance and being boxed in by our own beliefs and prejudice which can make us blind & oblivious.
Too much rationality is grotesque as well as too much irrationality. Neither demonstrates the truth, but both perspectives utilized properly may bring us closer to it.
To deny one in favour of the other is akin to cutting our right leg off in favour for the right. Better to be standing on both and gain more balance.
Fundamental rationalists as demonstrated on here are terrified or irrationality and the possibility that they might not have all the answers or worse still might never have! They are also terrified of such things as uncertainty, imagination and no doubt the unconscious or subconscious.
Because they fear they might be made gullible, vulnerable, made to look a fool, be misled, or may even go insane should they even consider or explore such things.
It's a terrible shame that they deny even before they try. It's not good science to simply turn your back on a thing just because you wish it not to exist within your reality. It's a shame that even after so many accounts and much evidence to the fact there is an explicable part to human life and experience that are sometimes difficult to explain, they still refuse to even consider the possibility.
Neo-mystics are not trying to pull down the age of reason and rationality, they are trying to add to it in order to make it whole.
That was an excellent article i posted by Nathaniel Brandon about the 'Stolen Concept Fallacy' it was the perfect argument to refute my original claims, and that's what's so great about it. Two extremes that are both valid, somewhere in between lays the truth. And that's what's a great advantage of the forum, to be able to gain balance and perspective.
Shame Susan didn't read it, she might have made a much better argument than resorting to pulling the ridiculous out of the hat in an attempt to appear reasonable.
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/cata...n_concept.html
You mentioned balance. If one is 90% sure of a thing, as a result of soundness, consistency, evidence, etc, is it then balanced to hold an "agnostic" position? Or is it more reasonable to hold a position which coincides to the amount of certainty involved?
Well, you really put your foot in your mouth this time. Einstein was an atheist, idiot.
Please stop insulting us with using Einstein quotes to support your argument. They don't.
No, it is that which YOU can't demonstrate, but repeat over and over like the brainwashed, deluded fool that you are.
Einstein was an atheist, idiot.
Einstein was an agnostic, idiot.No, it is that which YOU can't demonstrate, but repeat over and over like the brainwashed, deluded fool that you are.
Einstein was an atheist, idiot.
Einstein quotes on spirituality:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
God does not play dice with the universe.
God is subtle but he is not malicious.
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.
Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Only a life lived for others is a life worth while.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.
The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.
Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.
[quote="kkawohl"]
Einstein was an agnostic, idiot.[quote]
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion."
[quote="(Q)"][quote="kkawohl"]
Einstein was an agnostic, idiot.I agree...Einstein said "imagine & believe", none of the above definitively state "God does not exist"...and in other statements...Einstein showed to be an agnostic...not an atheist.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, I concur not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. I concur
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, I agree, man has created god to his own liking the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.I concur
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. I concur And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them. I concur
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. I concur Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. I concur; the individual does not survive, the spirit does.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. same as above
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. I agree
It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion."I concur
[quote="(Q)"][quote="kkawohl"]
Einstein was an agnostic, idiot.Because as you say, "I cannot imagine" isn't an arguement that proves anything. If you told me Michael Phelps could swim like he does without me seeing it and only having a limited reference of what swimming was I would tell you "I cannot imagine anyone could swim that fast," and I'd be wrong.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion."
I believe God is a reality and you obviously do not.
That does not make me or anybody else (who believes in God) inherently an idiot. Although I would agree that the wrong application of faith can lead people to idiocy. It is foolish for people like you to be so determined to convince others of and unprovable position. You have reasoned that God does not exhist. Many others have reasoned that he does and niether side can prove the validity of the view they espouse.
Just because God isn't "portrayed" like "you" thought he would be is a horrible reason to dispell the possibility that there is a God.
You have no idea how we got here b/c the best and brightest have no idea (Big Band Singularity, yeah I know but what caused that infinite chain of events that leads us to this moment).
No, it is that which YOU can't demonstrate, but repeat over and over like the brainwashed, deluded fool that you are.
Einstein was an atheist, idiot.Are you misunderstanding the posts above? Q said I was an idiot because Einstein was an atheist rather than an agnostic...and I posted Einstein's quotes to back that up.
To me God is a reality and exists as spirit...Q disavowes god or spirituality.
To me, archibald the phantom mouse is a reality. He teleports into my room each night and steals the invisible cheese. You can't see him without ghost vision. Also, he can stop time.
kkawohl
I agree that there is a 'miltiple God' system.
I also believe in the existence of spirit, both good and evil.
See my post on this subject page 1 in about the center.
Cosmo
o
" I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. "
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
No, that is not true, YOU have failed miserably in demonstrating your claims of god or spirituality. Your version of reality is a personal fantasy.To me God is a reality and exists as spirit...Q disavowes god or spirituality.
Which god do you believe in, Zeus? Apollo? Thor? Jesus? Allah? Which of the thousands of gods throughout history do you believe is a reality?
So, when people claim to see leprechauns and unicorns, you wouldn't call them an idiot?That does not make me or anybody else (who believes in God) inherently an idiot.
No, that is not true, not a single person has "reasoned" gods exist, nor has a single person demonstrated gods exist. Can you demonstrate your god exists?You have reasoned that God does not exhist. Many others have reasoned that he does and niether side can prove the validity of the view they espouse.
Your ignorance of science does not preclude the understanding of others.You have no idea how we got here b/c the best and brightest have no idea (Big Band Singularity, yeah I know but what caused that infinite chain of events that leads us to this moment).
You are obviously the smartest guy in the room (a tenured Professor at Cambridge I'm sure), so you give me the in a nut shell answer as to why I should not believe in the idea/possibility of a God. Not a specific God, but God at all.
What you do is knock down specific religious gods and you seem to think that proves that a God does not exist.
Since you are so smart and know God doesn't exist, you miust also know that we know so little about the Universe let alone Earth that your overarching atheism is untenable. It is untenable because we can see/understand such a small piece of the big picture. I believe because of faith, I cannot prove it and I might be wrong. I see design in the world/universe not just random occurances.
Do I smell a hint of sarcasm or an overwhelming stench?
The invisible and undetectable are indistinguishable from the non-existent. You theists have had several dozen centuries to demonstrate your gods, any gods, exist, with a miserable failure rate of 100%.so you give me the in a nut shell answer as to why I should not believe in the idea/possibility of a God. Not a specific God, but God at all.
You can believe in the possibility of a god existing as much as anything else purported to exist (within the realm of the invisible and undetectable), but to give credibility to the probability of a god existing is infinitely negligible.
Then, produce your god to shut me up.What you do is knock down specific religious gods and you seem to think that proves that a God does not exist.
Ah, so you believe god is somewhere in the universe and we simply haven't discovered him yet? Heaven and hell, too?Since you are so smart and know God doesn't exist, you miust also know that we know so little about the Universe let alone Earth that your overarching atheism is untenable. It is untenable because we can see/understand such a small piece of the big picture.
Since your beliefs are based entirely on faith, with not a shred of evidence to back them up, how can the probability of you being wrong not be overwhelming?I believe because of faith, I cannot prove it and I might be wrong.
Yet, when scrutinized, "design in the world/universe does not stand up as an argument.I see design in the world/universe not just random occurances.
Watch Episode #2 - Designed and Designoid Objects
http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse
Q is an incontrovertible, pleonastic, philippic atheist and malapert, bumptious Forum Professor...all hail to Q :wink:
"Q" is most certainly open to questions, he would not be an Atheist otherwise, but you have to meet him at least half way and pose a question first.Q is an incontrovertible, pleonastic, philippic atheist and malapert, bumptious Forum Professor...all hail to Q :wink:
"Q"/Atheists need to use words in excess, purely because it is hard for the theist to grasp otherwise.
Well can you wonder at it.
"Q"/Atheists do tend to appear bitter to the obvious idiotic rantings of Theism. Not one reasonable person would suffer fools gladly. And due to there not suffering fools gladly, they can appear impudent, but they have every right to voice an opinion, even if the receiver of said opinion does not like it, after all this is a public forum.
And thus they tend to appear overtly confident. Which winds up the Theist, completely.
So yes lets all hail "Q" he's worthy of the praise. He puts over a good argument, of which you and patal are yet to refute.
so you resort like all theist to diverting the thread, to take the onus of yourselves for not providing any evidence for your claims, as usual.
Tolerance can appear to be an insolvable paradox to the complete imbecile and fundamentalist wacko, for they imagine that tolerance is unsupportable because it is intolerant of intolerance (i.e. kinda intolerant of them). This is plain nonsense. Society indeed must impose rules and standards of what is acceptable upon its citizens and thus society must decide on what it will consider most important. A theocracy decides that the beliefs of one religion is what is most important and makes the rules and standards of that religion the rules and standards of the whole society. A free society decides that tolerance and religious freedom is what is most important and so it is the rules and standards of tolerance and religious freedom that are imposed upon the members of that society, and that means that intolerance is not tolerated and that people are not free to pursue religious bigotry and the persecution of people based on their religious beliefs.
Fundamentalist wackos of all sorts delude themselves in believing that they are the righteous and rational and the everyone who disagrees with them are deranged. Fundamentalist wackos of all varieties (both theist and atheist) are not only identifiable by this idiotic self-righteousness and the irrational beliefs they are always spouting but also by the fact that they see no need for religious freedom and tolerance. Since it is their view that those who disagree with them are deranged and stupid, they cannot see any need for a freedom to be stupid and feel that the deranged need to be cured rather than tolerated.
However another principle of tolerance is that of appropriate action. This means that fundamentalist wackos that simply spout there obnoxious fascist ranting (as long as it is done in an appropriate venue) will not be silenced. Against those that are verbally intolerant what is appropriate is verbal sanction. It is the duty of the responsible citizens of a free society to make it clear to these childish imbeciles that their idiotic nonsense DOES NOT reflect the values of a free society.
Mitch usually offers the largest loads of crap dealt up as if it smelled like roses. What Mitch, and every other deluded theist forgets, is that their cults have far more reaching effects than just the freedom to believe. Their vicious and deranged cults make demands on society that are completely unacceptable, yet he feels we should kowtow to their demands, and when we don't want to, they squeal we are fundamental wackos trying to take away their religious freedoms.
The values of a free society are clearly Mitchell's gods values, the kind of values in which superstition, myth and mysticism rule in favor of rationale and reason, where gods, angels and demons make decisions, where the Abrahamic god, as cruel and immoral a supernatural entity ever was, is the big kahuna and arbiter of life and death, and ultimately mankinds future. Lo and behold, he must continue his eternal battle with the nasty Lucifer.It is the duty of the responsible citizens of a free society to make it clear to these childish imbeciles that their idiotic nonsense DOES NOT reflect the values of a free society.
Childish imbeciles, indeed. When will Mitch grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.
Susan
Well, you may respect (Q) like the rest of the religious followers that tolerate his intolerence of others with his 'one' liners does not exhibit a mature brain.
He condemns religion but accepts the BBT that is religion because it promotes 'creation' out of nothing.
So I find his arguments to be contradictory.
Cosmo
From you, I take that as a compliment. Thanks. 8)
Easy susan, I like Q, even though I just called him an obnoxious liar on "The definitions of atheism and agnosticism" thread...and did you miss the :wink: on my respons above?
There can never be natural proof of of a supernatural existence...but the spirit can acess it...it resides in the supernatural consciousness.
Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death. Dr Lommel, et al, stirred a bit of controversy back in 2001 when they were published in Lancet, England’s noted medical journal. The publication described near death experiences (NDE's) in survivors of cardiac arrest.
Kurt, "spirits" ARE part of the supernatural.
There was no controversy as there was no evidence. Testimonials are useless, especially when the brain isn't functioning. Kurt has yet to understand that.Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death. Dr Lommel, et al, stirred a bit of controversy back in 2001 when they were published in Lancet, England’s noted medical journal. The publication described near death experiences (NDE's) in survivors of cardiac arrest.
8) Hallelujah, you have seen the lightKurt, "spirits" ARE part of the supernatural.you are no longer an a-theist :wink: now you are a b-theist.
As usual, Q makes it clear, in case anyone is confused about it, that his stand is utterly against religious freedom and tolerance. Although his sort of intolerance and fundamentalist wackoism is responsible for the greatest atrocities of the last century, his sort of intolerant fundamentalism is not the worst to be found in the world today, if for no other reasons than that the depredation of his kind has sent a pretty clear warning. But perhaps his sort is currently growing more popular in reaction to the fundamentalist wackos of the other kind.Mitch usually offers the largest loads of crap dealt up as if it smelled like roses. What Mitch, and every other deluded theist forgets, is that their cults have far more reaching effects than just the freedom to believe. Their vicious and deranged cults make demands on society that are completely unacceptable, yet he feels we should kowtow to their demands, and when we don't want to, they squeal we are fundamental wackos trying to take away their religious freedoms.
These other kind are largely composed of those who, in the west, are at least nominally Christian, but who are also opposed to the secular control of public institutions which is so neccessary for a culturally diverse free society founded on the principles of tolerance and religious freedom and since science becomes a significant authority in the decisions of secularism, they tend to be rather anti-science as well. Their interests seems to include demolishing scientific objectivity in the scientific investigation of the origin of life and the species, imposing on everyone their newly invented conviction about when human life begins, extending their evangelical efforts to the public schools (using issues involving Bibles, prayer and creationism), the right to bear arms and the right of businesses to cheat the public without government interference. Where this takes a turn toward fascism is when they consider these interest to be so important that they are willing to dimantle the protections of individual rights in the pursuit of these interests.
These fundamentalist wackos would have us swallow the lie that they are nothing like those they are reacting against, when the truth is that they are really more of the same. If we must, we can envision it as a circle which starts at those who are willing to compromise on issues and put the interests of tolerance and religious freedom first, but the extreme conservatives and liberals meet on the other side of the circle where "communism" and "fascism" are indistiguishable in their utter intolerance for opposition and complete disregard for the rights of the individual. But the truth is that these so called differences between conservative and liberal seem rather artificial and arbitrary to me, for it is the precisely the issue of tolerance, religious liberty and protecting the rights of the individual that is really important and these other pale into insignifance by comparison. So I say to the crapper with this circle BS and see that there really is only one issue here and that whether we are going to respect a diversity of human thinking or not -- are we going to live in a free society or in a theocracy (or communist or fascist state or whatever you want to call it).
Oh and another significant identifying characteristic of these fundmetalist wackos of all types is the complete unwillingness to consider any sort of compromise, for whether in the name of their "supposed REASON" or God or whatever, theirs is a "holy" cause, against which mere human lives or freedom has no significance, and thus compromise is an impossibility.
This is of course the typical tactic of the fascist. Any attempt to examine their behavior is met with immediate identification of any opposition or examiner with this supposed extreme enemy which they are supposedly fighting against. But the only difference between them is a small percentage of the people they will crush for standing in their way -- the other wackos that they say they are supposedly fighting against, for the majority fighting for compromise and tolerance will be painted with the same brush by their refusal to see the world in anything but black and white - this "with me or against me" mentality of street gangs.
It really is laughable and obvious when we see these fundamentalist wackos objecting to tolerance, religious freedom and individual rights because these are supposedly the tools of the enemy of their holy cause. LOL And so we see Q here reacting against my opposition to theocracy because instead of simply being a epithet he can hurl at his opposition, I make it clear that forcing a world-view of any sort (beyond that of tolerance and religious freedom) on everyone else should be considered no different from a theocracy.
| « No thing is absolute or prove otherwise | Would Consciousness Travel with a Soul to a Target Machine? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
