3) You're going to hell (well depending on your religion, you sure don't get to go where 1 is going)
I disagree. If there is a God, he must be highly intelligent. He will respect intelligent people, who make sensible choices for rational reasons.
Therefore God will have more respect for atheists than for religious people.
There is only one God and that is me, and I challenge any entity with divine aspirations to point the finger at me from the sky and destroy me with a bolt of lightning. In the meantime, you may worship me and sacrifice your keyboards in rituals involving naked chicks (yes, there are perks) dancing around bonfires in the rainy woods at night.
Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Religion. Go.
Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Religion. Go.
By the laws of nature that God created, it is not possible for God to exist. Because for God to be omnipresent, he would need control over ever particle, molecule and atom. For that, imagine you start your own universe by using a computer simulation. And you would mirror our own universe. In order to track all the tiniest elements, you would need need the combined energy of the entire universe to keep it running.
At that leaves no energy to run our cars and to post on geekhack. And we can't have that.
If God is not real, surely my delusions have more hope than you could possibly bring, so how do I lose?
As it seems to me, there are two major conflicting natural tendencies for people : the search for purpose, and the desire to be accountable to no one ... People tend to have trouble with one or the other. Nothing fully satisfies both, because the two are mutually exclusive.
The natural world can not easily explain everything...so there must be something supernatural.
What I'm saying is, your argument, and variations upon it, really boil down to "We don't know x therefore God exists". God effectively becomes a manifestation not only of human ignorance, but our arrogant inability to just accept that we can't solve certain problems and just leave them be.
Pride is known as a vice, so why are people so proud to assert that people are capable of everything?
Since we can't claim to know everything, why do you just say that I have to be wrong then? Is there not the possibility, for a God?
Or have we been so indoctrinated since the time of the "Enlightenment" that reason is the only possibility?
What hope for the future, for living life, does the atheist have? I can't begin to say, because I don't know.
Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Religion. Go.
The natural world can not explain how matter came to be.
As large as I am in comparison, I don't much care for (or hate) ants. If there was a god or gods, why would he/they care about humans?
My point: who cares.
Please, do at least get your science right. We've got scientific theories on that one since the 1960s.
Remember: Scientific theories, not mere philosophical thoughts.
-huha
What, the Big Bang? Where did that matter come from?
What even makes that scientific? Oh, uh...I guess all this matter came out of nowhere, clumped together and exploded into everything.
i refuse to get sucked into this... :D
Let's take a look at your avatar:Show Image(http://geekhack.org/image.php?u=1349&dateline=1249263551)
What I don't get is why science can not have a spirital basis. Unless Newton, Galileo, and contemporaries were idiots.
Just because everybody else says its true doesn't mean it is.
Science asks can you prove it, and you just said you can't prove the Big Bang? How's that Scientific?
Just because everybody else says its true doesn't mean it is.
Science asks can you prove it, and you just said you can't prove the Big Bang? How's that Scientific?
Let's take a look at your avatar:Show Image(http://geekhack.org/image.php?u=1349&dateline=1249263551)
My son had to explain that avatar to me - he knew it right away.
Science asks can you prove it, and you just said you can't prove the Big Bang? How's that Scientific?
What I don't get is why science can not have a spirital basis.
Unless Newton, Galileo, and contemporaries were idiots.
Just because everybody else says its true doesn't mean it is.
Science asks can you prove it, and you just said you can't prove the Big Bang? How's that Scientific?
This has to be the most ingenious way to troll an entire forum that I have ever seen! Congratulations! :clap2:
Nice try, though. You surely need to get better at this.
The problem with any origin theory is that it isn't provable, nor repeatable.
Why not?
count me as an apathetic agnostic (o2dazone, i'd like to join your brother's friend's group! any web address?).
A strange answer. Generally when you make a statement, the burden of proof lies on you, not the person who asks you to explain yourself.
Okay, here's my real point:
I can believe that God created the world. The way the world works is the same. Therefore, the science is not different.
The problem with any origin theory is that it isn't provable, nor repeatable.
so you're basically a deist? thats fairly normal. as I understand it many of the founding fathers were deists.
One side effect here tho is that therefore you do believe in the separation of church and state? For deists the nation-state depends mainly on science and the authority of science for its authority to rule. (As opposed to, say, a theocracy).
This is why the founders were able to relegate faith to the 'personal' realm. (and protect it there, as a right, as in "the right to worship as you please").
So long as it didnt interfere with the scientific state and its science-based policies (science was both the extent and limit of the state's authority).
This was basically the 'truce' that the enlightenment made with the church. (In the anglo-american tradition anyway). The commies of course rejected the truce and went to war with the church (just as the evangelicals rejected the truce and went to war with the enlightenment).
The problem with any origin theory is that it isn't provable, nor repeatable.
http://www.uctaa.net/
Because he's technically a minister of an organized religion, he was able to legally wed his sister and her husband lol
The church of those who don't know and don't care? Seems like a strange reason to organize a sect.
Well, really, how can you repeat that which has happened, and you can't for sure say how it happened? There certainly doesn't seem to be a way to recreate something that you haven't seen, and don't really know for a fact how it happened.
actually i think its a profoundly ethical group. They're refusing to lie, basically.
I believe that God has his place in science, because he created it.
Not everything about belief is supernatural.
Isn't the whole cornerstone of science that you come up with a theory for how something works, and try and recreate things in order to prove the theory? I'm not saying that we need to create a new universe to find out, but things can be mimicked on a much smaller scale. For example - we can't create another sun, but we can mimick it's operation in some experimental fusion reactors.
but the position you're describing here (god made the world but the world operates on its science-based rules) is basically the deistic position.I believe in a more personal God, Deists don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I'm not sure mainline evangelical baptists agree with you on that, by the way. Not that that matters.
Which is precisely my point. Can you rigorously re-create enough to know that your theory is true? The universe is an infinitely complex system of interconnected layers of other systems. How, realistically, can one re-create even a fraction of that?
Just an honest question:
Can you really NOT care?
While there is the high availability of funds to buy diversions, the question is squeezed out of thought...but when one is alone, or unable to purchase new diversions, the thought comes to mind, doesn't it?
I'm just curious as to whether one can factually not care.
I'd be lying if I said I could even imagine how that was true. But again, that indicative of a lack of knowledge in the area, not of the existence of God. A point which you continously seem to ignore.
Just an honest question:
Can you really NOT care?
While there is the high availability of funds to buy diversions, the question is squeezed out of thought...but when one is alone, or unable to purchase new diversions, the thought comes to mind, doesn't it?
I'm just curious as to whether one can factually not care.
This is a good question, I think.
Can I really "not care", as you put it?
Specifically, I assume you mean, "can you not care whether god exists?"
my response is: what kind of god?
Do I care whether a jealous god who demands his followers claim a universal monopoly on the Good, exists?
No, I dont care that that kind of god exists. I'd rather he didnt, actually. He's been nothing but trouble. He's been astonishingly destructive and immoral, even by the standard of his own declared laws.
What if you offered me a god who allowed people to experiment and act and improve their lives on their own? Accountable to each other? Recognizing each others basic divinity despite regional and cultural differences, differences which he sees as legitimate?
I wouldnt mind such a god. But such a god wouldnt mind my being an agnostic, either. In fact so long my agnosticism produced a "live and let live" attitude, such a god might even find me to be ethical.
What if we don't have the capability to understand enough?
I've been trying to show this: we have too much faith in science.
Looking at the infinite complexity of nature, to me points to a source of infinite knowledge. Since we can only be of finite knowledge, that, to me, points to the supernatural. Why do we try to fit the infinite into the confines of what is finite?
Or, if you mean, "can you not care that you're not "saved" and wont have "eternal life" after you die?"
Honestly, I dont care what happens to me after I die. I'm actually okay with that. I'm looking forward to my material remains feeding new life (maybe some nice daisies). My material body will become part of the universe again, and thats fine with me. (A kind of material reincarnation). My soul? There's no such thing - though if there were, I'd revolt against any metaphysical regime that demanded a monopoly and exclusivist claim on it.
You are saying that nature is so infinitely complicated that that there is an infinite amount of things to know, and as humans we will never be able to know everything that there is to be known. I can accept this theory as an being a valid viewpoint, but I don't see how infinity equals supernatural. Have you considered that maybe the universe just became that way by chance?
Here's my question then, if God is not of our creation, but we a creation of God, how do we have the audacity to try to rationalize our behavior by our standards?
If God were of the latter type, why would there be a limited time of existence on earth?
How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?
If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance. Would you care to elaborate?
How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?
People used to say that about animals and plants...
Your argument here is a little like this guy in the story. Why do you assume that intellect, observation, and the kinds of knowledge men can make, are inadmissable or illegitimate in god's world?
And if you admit them as valid but incomplete, why do you have the audacity to assume you "know" what completes it?
So who's being irresponsible now?
what does that have to do with anything? Oh, I see, you're basically drawing on the original sin idea, which according to augustine is the root cause of human mortality itself.
I don't understand how you can just deny the existence of a soul. What is it that makes you, you? Your body is a factor, sure. But your personality, you real essence, can't be explained by chemical processes.
I've always been suprised by the claim of open-mindedness, as its quite hypocritical. You can be open to the idea of a universal path of religion, but any exclusive spirituality, no, that's backwards and close-minded.
If you have an all powerful creator, why doesn't the Creator have the right to set what rules he wishes on his Creation?
Just because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power doesn't mean that it can't exist.
Consider the parasite that causes River Blindness in African countries. The only way that it can sustain itself is by burying itself into people, and reproducing itself and causing serious damage the host body. If that organism was the result of intelligent design, God must have a very strange sense of humour...Pain is a result of sin. Sadly, people learn more through bad experiences than through good experiences. Beyond that, I can not know the will of God.
Likewise, consider oil. God, in all his infinite wisdom, decides to create the most easily usable form of fuel in a rare, hard to extract substance that damages the environment (which he conviniently made rather fragile) and concentrates it in areas around people who believe in another God...
But of course, this is how he test us, right?
Pain is a result of sin. Sadly, people learn more through bad experiences than through good experiences. Beyond that, I can not know the will of God.
Actually oil makes a lot of sense, in the light of a global flood. Rapid burial of plant and animal remains, under the pressure of new land masses, and a few thousand years. That makes oil, does it not?
In fact, its evangelicals who seek to stop those systems from functioning the way they should and the way they do.
not at all - its precisely because of science's willingness to critique itself, that you are enjoying your personal belief as a constitutionally-protected right.
This is why the more relevant question, in answer to my claim to have a rabbit in my pants, is "so what?".
Woah, since when am I dismissing intellect? You assume because I believe the world started differently, that I dismiss intellect?
I'm just wondering the plausibility of the main premise of science, because I'm looking at what I can see, and it doesn't add up. Is that not the pursuit of intellect?
Augustine does not have any more authority than a normal person, so I don't see what you're getting at.
Even if you dismiss the Bible as fiction:
- The Bible is the most printed book, in all of history
- These copies are very diligent translations of very precise similarities
- Biblical history has been reasonably proven by archaeology.
- Many men have died to have a translation in their language
Why would I want something that changes when I find out I am wrong, if I have something that doesn't change, because it IS right?
Yep, because the millions of children that go blind or die sooo deserved it...
You're ignoring my point. If something like oil was 'engineered' by a superior being, surely they could have designed something that didn't have all the aforementioned issues and then some - if God can magic the entire universe out of nothingness, surely he could make us an electricity tree or something?
Like I said, I can't comprehend the will of God.
Not to mention that Creation was only perfect BEFORE sin.
- The Bible is the most printed book, in all of history
- These copies are very diligent translations of very precise similarities
- Biblical history has been reasonably proven by archaeology.
- Many men have died to have a translation in their language
Pain is a result of sin.
Oh, stereotyping.
Besides medical technology being overly expensive, I don't have qualms about medical treatment.
And yet science can not critique the world came to be in a statistically impossible way?
Assuming the Bible is true, its your soul, and eternal torment. But that's your call.
no, but if you base that belief only on desire without considering both evidence and counter-evidence, and dismissing material facts that interfere in your belief, and then drawing definite conclusions in the face of uncertain evidence, then yes, you're dismissing intellect. by definition.
so what? why does the bible have "any more authority than a normal book"? It was written by fallible humans too. And its contradictions and inaccuracies show that in spades.Contradictions and inaccuracies. Show me.
now, if you want to apply reason to weed out its contradictions and inaccuracies - guess what - you're using your intellect! :D
as martin luther showed convincingly, thats simply not true that the translations were either precise or diligent or even sincere. I'm not sure how much of the history of the protestant reformation you're aware of, but the question of the accuracy of biblical translations was front-and-center in that struggle.And, the Latin Vulgate is never used for translations, but direct Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The 'translation' was vulgar, and was rejected.
archeology shows that certain kings or societies existed in certain times. how does that in turn prove 'divinity' of the people or events in question? All myths have some basis in fact - even the greek myths have been 'proven' by archeology. Does that mean the greek gods were real, too?
because you're assuming (with incredible audacity), apriori, that something absolutely perfect dropped out of the sky into your lap, nicely bound with page numbers and chapter headings.
Or to be more specific, you don't want to try and comprehend it, because if you actually analyzed religious doctrine, you'd realize that there's an awful lot of things that just don't add up.
So why did God create sin then?
The first three things could be said of the Harry Potter books, and as for the last one, well, just because people are prepared to die for something, doesn't mean that it's good or worthy of attention. 9/11 suicide bombers much?
then you must be in favor of universal health care? :D
God did not create sin. Sin came into being out of the rebellion of Lucifer. Sin is rebellion against God.
Its factuality in events is still shown by archaeology.
The Greek 'gods' were mere idols and corruptions of what was true.
For that matter, when it pertains to actual observable science, the Bible has often shown the reality of the science.
Contradictions and inaccuracies. Show me.
Did God not create Lucifer? Is God not all powerful?Free will exists, and sin does fulfill a purpose.
How do you know that?Lucifer means 'Morning Star'.
And what is your opinion on the other Gods such as Jaweh, Allah etc?While not talking about Islam, these are all names of the same God. Jaweh is the vowel-less Hebrew word for the reverent name of God. Allah is simply God in Arabic.
Where?1. The Earth is Round
Free will exists, and sin does fulfill a purpose.
Ezekiel 28 14-15 (ESV)
...
Isiah 14:12-15 (ESV)
...
While not talking about Islam, these are all names of the same God. Jaweh is the vowel-less Hebrew word for the reverent name of God. Allah is simply God in Arabic.
Again, you are trying to prove the validity of what you believe in terms of a book who's validity depends on the validity of your beliefs.
I assume you are referring to timw4mail as opposed to me? =P
When I said "How do you know?" I was saying that in reference to your statement about the Greek Gods. The Islam and Judaism examples may not have been the best, but let's take for example Hindus - Do you believe they are all going to burn in the fires of hell for believing in the "wrong" (I stress quotation marks) religion?
Yes, I do.
I rarely encounter people these days that seem to take such stock in the bible.
Can I ask you what your take is on human slavery? Selling daughters to other men? Stuff like that?
mind blowing audacity? yes, mind blowing audacity. :)
I rarely encounter people these days that seem to take such stock in the bible.
I don't find it funny to point out the inconsistencies in the evolutionary/humanistic belief system.
I have the audacity to be consistent?
No I mean the parts of the bible that say stuff like:
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."
And:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
Yes, I do.
you dont have to - the humanist system itself seeks to identify factual inconsistencies, acknowledge them, and correct them whenever possible. They consider it an ethical value to be that way - Unlike, say, biblical literalists ;)
but you're not being consistent. You're being rigid. its an important difference. You can only be rigid by being INconsistent.Inconsistent with your beliefs? I thought we were supposed to be open to other belief systems. I though we were supposed to tolerate, even with things that we do not agree with.
As far as audacity - is it audacious to think of yourself as being in a position to condemn the majority of humanity to hell? You betcha.
You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?
Inconsistent with your beliefs? I thought we were supposed to be open to other belief systems. I though we were supposed to tolerate, even with things that we do not agree with.
I'm not saying that I have that authority. God has that authority.
You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?
You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?
This is why the bible still has a line in the book of Leviticus that says (to the best of my recollection) - "A man must not have relations with another man, for God hates this."
Or that the suicidal should be hanged to punish them for trying to defy God's will?
I believe the line is more like, "A man shall not lay with another man as he does with a woman." The actual wording may vary slightly depending on which one of the 11ty billion translations available.
Well, the problem with religions is that they take the morals of the time and stick rigidly to them. This is why the bible still has a line in the book of Leviticus that says (to the best of my recollection) - "A man must not have relations with another man, for God hates this."
I also note that there's huge inconsistencies between various Christian sects as to what is considered right, and what is completely frowned upon, and within those sects the attitudes of the believers vary. What you are saying may have remote basis if the very thing you stick to didnt have such a pick and mix nature to it.
It follows that as society evolves, certain things that were essential in the past are no longer relevant. For example, do you eat kosher food? Do you still think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should be burned to death for 'being possesed'? Or that the suicidal should be hanged to punish them for trying to defy God's will?
Where in the bible is it described what in the New Testament supplants the Old Testament? Or is that something that is up to people to decide?This is due to the resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Holy Spirit.
How much studying did you do of the text you quoted that you feel proves that the bible was explaining that the universe was expanding and that the earth was a sphere (by calling it a circle)?That particular passage is a praise of God's power and handiwork. It isn't much of a figurative stretch to apply the passage in that way.
Where in the bible is it described what in the New Testament supplants the Old Testament? Or is that something that is up to people to decide?
This is due to the resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Holy Spirit.
This is due to the resurrection of Christ and the introduction of the Holy Spirit.
That particular passage is a praise of God's power and handiwork. It isn't much of a figurative stretch to apply the passage in that way.
How much studying did you do of the text you quoted that you feel proves that the bible was explaining that the universe was expanding and that the earth was a sphere (by calling it a circle)?.
seriously. I mean if that "proves" that the bible foresaw modern science, I bet I could interpret the bible as "foretelling" the arrival of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the new prophet carrying the "New-New Testament."
After all, people have done stranger interpretations of the old testament. Like paul did. (old law not valid except when paul says it is; new law not intended for jews but for all the world - and was foretold in the old law). I mean wow. Talk about creative interpretation! :)
I wonder the bible code reveals the word "Carbohydrate." The probability of that happening is so low that if it is there, it would definitely suggest a higher, more noodly power at work.
you keep saying its statistically impossible - on what basis do you say that? cuz you're personally over-awed by nature's complexity?
Do I care whether a jealous god who demands his followers claim a universal monopoly on the Good, exists?
No, I dont care that that kind of god exists. I'd rather he didnt, actually. He's been nothing but trouble. He's been astonishingly destructive and immoral, even by the standard of his own declared laws.
I'm assuming that you are crediting organized religion for many of the world's major human atrocities.
This is a common perspective among atheists/agnostics, but I think if you look at the data it shows just the opposite. When you look at the "big numbers" -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and genocides everywhere (e.g., Rwanda, annihilation of the native Americans) -- you'll find that they were overwhelmingly secular in nature.
Welly, can you clarify what you mean by "nothing but trouble" and "astonishingly destructive"?
I'm assuming that you are crediting organized religion for many of the world's major human atrocities. This is a common perspective among atheists/agnostics, but I think if you look at the data it shows just the opposite. When you look at the "big numbers" -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and genocides everywhere (e.g., Rwanda, annihilation of the native Americans) -- you'll find that they were overwhelmingly secular in nature.
One could make the argument that organized religion might win via the law of small numbers, and that would be an interesting analysis. I'm just looking at the big events here.
I'm an agnostic, BTW, just trying to make sense of the data.
Movie tip time! The Man From Earth. Any others?
FYI the producer encourages downloading through the pirate bay and all (ehm, it increased his profile or something)
I would never say that religion is responsible for the majority of bad stuff that has happened in the world, I would however say that it's responsible for a disproportionately large number of bad stuff relative to other philosophies, pre-occupations etc.
Isn't the whole cornerstone of science that you come up with a theory for how something works, and try and recreate things in order to prove the theory? I'm not saying that we need to create a new universe to find out, but things can be mimicked on a much smaller scale. For example - we can't create another sun, but we can mimick it's operation in some experimental fusion reactors.
Which is precisely my point. Can you rigorously re-create enough to know that your theory is true? The universe is an infinitely complex system of interconnected layers of other systems. How, realistically, can one re-create even a fraction of that?
What if we don't have the capability to understand enough? I've been trying to show this: we have too much faith in science.
Looking at the infinite complexity of nature, to me points to a source of infinite knowledge. Since we can only be of finite knowledge, that, to me, points to the supernatural. Why do we try to fit the infinite into the confines of what is finite?
what is it you want to understand? do you want a law that can be applied to every aspect of the life cycle and applied to everyone on earth?
Me, I'm glad we dont have that capability. If you want it, you frighten me.
scientists looked at infinite complexity and recognized that a handful of physical properties produced that complexity in predictable ways.
sometimes it pays not to be over-awed by nature.
I don't understand how you can just deny the existence of a soul. What is it that makes you, you? Your body is a factor, sure. But your personality, you real essence, can't be explained by chemical processes.
I've always been suprised by the claim of open-mindedness, as its quite hypocritical. You can be open to the idea of a universal path of religion, but any exclusive spirituality, no, that's backwards and close-minded.
To be open to an idea, you have to consider all ideas with equal weight. You have to be able to allow an idea that you don't like, as much as the idea that you like.
If you have an all powerful creator, why doesn't the Creator have the right to set what rules he wishes on his Creation? Just because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power doesn't mean that it can't exist.
If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance. Would you care to elaborate?
Woah, since when am I dismissing intellect? You assume because I believe the world started differently, that I dismiss intellect?
I'm just wondering the plausibility of the main premise of science, because I'm looking at what I can see, and it doesn't add up. Is that not the pursuit of intellect?
Why would I want something that changes when I find out I am wrong, if I have something that doesn't change, because it IS right?
Actually oil makes a lot of sense, in the light of a global flood. Rapid burial of plant and animal remains, under the pressure of new land masses, and a few thousand years. That makes oil, does it not?
I'm writing all of this again since my browser crashed. I'll write it fast and it won't be as good. That's kind of ... a bummer.
then you must be in favor of universal health care? :D
Of course you ignore the fact that you are also acting on beliefs in the outcomes of your arguments. You just can't let science be wrong.
For that matter, when it pertains to actual observable science, the Bible has often shown the reality of the science.
Do I sound stupid? As I said, my belief in God does not change the fact that the world works the way it does.
1. The Earth is Round
2. The Expansion of the Universe
Isaiah 40:22 (ESV)
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
It's not like I hate other people because they have different beliefs. I don't find it funny to point out the inconsistencies in the evolutionary/humanistic belief system.
You keep bring up ethics. Where do you base your ethics? On cultural shifts and flows? How is right and wrong subject to change?
Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Religion. Go.Yes?
By the way, without looking it up anywhere, may I ask what you'd think the approximate age (please don't look it up. Being wrong by some orders of magnitude is nothing to be ashemed of and I'd like your honest opinion) of the following entities is?
a) The universe
b) Our sun
c) Earth
d) Steven Ballmer
-huha
Yes?
a) Same as the sun
b) 2 days younger than earth
c) ~6000 years
d) Irrelevant
Do you believe existence started as a watery chaos or a desert?
I like the hell thing. Better do what the People Who Rule demand, or the punishment will be ETERNAL in the WORST IMAGINABLE place. I want to see a B movie around this concept.
Haha - great retort there!
Okay, sorry. I didn't know you were one of those guys. There's absolutely no sense in discussing with you then. I'm out.
I just hope you'll get basic science right one day, for the sake of humanity.
-huha
I like the hell thing. Better do what the People Who Rule demand, or the punishment will be ETERNAL in the WORST IMAGINABLE place. I want to see a B movie around this concept.
Haha - great retort there!
The one thing that can be said in favor of religion that it indeed created some form of order (among the usual war, death and destruction..) and a catalyst of culture, science and print in a mysterious world of chaos. But like Adams said, the burden of evidence shifted dramatically, and it no longer serves such purpose. All that remains is a tool of power. E.g. George Bush is of course not a religious person but religious people were his ticket to power. Not that Obama is any different in this regard, he just uses the other main group.
I'm more curious than anything. I don't quite get how people form their beliefs on a book that they themselves apparently interpret. I don't know if my questions about slavery and what parts of the old testament don't count, so when I saw the creation talk I figured I'd take another shot and hearing from the other side.
talking with literalists is one of the more fascinating things one can do. Who needs to travel to exotic places to find and experience utterly alien Others, or people caught in time, or people whose mindset is so completely inimical to modernity? Just go to some parts of the midwest. Its a trip. ;)
This pretty much described my trip through MO on my way to Chicago. Actually, there are some places not far from where I live that are exactly like this.
and the dinosaurs were put in the ground by god to test our faith. get with the program!
Except they're really full of ****. There's sufficient evidence based on an extremely large number of observations on the age of life, the universe, and everything. Saying this isn't true is either outright lying for the sake of a book being "right," even though at times, interpretation is not as literal if this contradicted their own agenda. So they're either total nutcases or outright lying.
Archaeology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history etc. clearly point out the earth being older than a few thousand years. So why do you constantly deny this? How come? Do you deny applications of technology based on the same assumptions that lead to the age of the earth being older than 10'000 years? Would you put a barrel of radioactive waste beneath your bed, because radioisotopic dating is clearly wrong according to your know-all-end-all book and as such, all dangers concerning radioactivity based on decay rates and half-lives are just wrong?
You're being incredibly dishonest and phony here--you deny science, yet reap all the benefits pertaining to rigorous applications of science, even the very thing you're fighting against.
-huha
How come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? How come there was no room on the ark for the dinosaurs?
No, I have no problem agains testable, provable science.
Evolution is not that kind of "science". You can not extrapolate the amount of radioactivity of an object and get its age reliably. That assumes that 1) there is always enough of a particular radioactive elemnent in a specimen that you can reliably test. 2) That radioactive decay is completely predicatable.
How many millions of years old would the carbon14 dating show you are?
It is that kind of science. Evolution is based on a study of the physical evidence at hand. Experiments are done to try to figure out how old things are and how they fit together with the other evidence. Experiments are done, and redone, and redone because scientists know that a positive result does not mean proof.
Think of it in terms of how Einstein described it:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
That's a key way of thinking when you are looking at something scientifically. And that's a basic aspect of science that you really need to understand before you can honestly judge the rest of it.
Science likes to be wrong, because that's the only way it can improve.
While I agree w/you on this, it should be pointed out that, very frequently, scientists themselves don't like to be wrong. They indeed pick up "beliefs" about about their research interests and those beliefs will influence both their study plans and conclusions.
Many scientists, including (I'm inclined to say "especially") major-league heavy-hitters, work more dogmatically than scientifically.
Evolution, macroevolution, has NEVER occured. You can't have on species become another species.
Microevolution, or the slight genetic differences that change over time, but stay the same thing, is definitely true. Genetic diversity is not the same as macroevolution.
Also, to address the new topic you've started here, micro and macro evolution are terms that not every scientist agrees with. Some think there's interesting work to be done looking at micro vs macro, others don't. The main division I see is that scientists looking at the biological mechanisms of evolution believe the only difference between the two is the timeframe you are examining. That's because the biological processes that are responsible for the micro evolution you believe in are also largely responsible for the macro evolution that you say can never happen.
No, I have no problem agains testable, provable science.
Actually, I don't think I missed the point ... I wasn't trying to equate a "faith-based scientific approach" with "faith-based science". Rather, I was just trying to provide an illustration that (a) sometimes the practitioners of science can provide the illusion of doing science a disservice*, and (b) this unfortunate fact can make science advocates seem hypocritical.
How many millions of years old would the carbon14 dating show you are?
Really? Then where does the additional genetic information come from for the large timeframe evolution?
Out of chance? Again, the probability of such an occurring ONCE is outside the realm of plausibility.
If I drop a bunch of loose legos on the floor, am I going to get a structure? No, I'm going to get a messy pile of legos.
This is why I state that I don't believe the Theory of Evolution is possible. Even in 4.3Billion years, you still don't have enough time to make the probability of one life form, let alone the countably innumerable number of species of life known.
Really? Then where does the additional genetic information come from for the large timeframe evolution?I find statistics combined with faith a funny thing.
Out of chance? Again, the probability of such an occurring ONCE is outside the realm of plausibility.
If I drop a bunch of loose legos on the floor, am I going to get a structure? No, I'm going to get a messy pile of legos.
This is why I state that I don't believe the Theory of Evolution is possible. Even in 4.3Billion years, you still don't have enough time to make the probability of one life form, let alone the countably innumerable number of species of life known.
I find statistics combined with faith a funny thing.
I find science combined with biblical literalism to be a funny thing, a schizophrenic way to live.
Apparently some of our fellow techies or science folk live that way though. There are missionary doctors too, after all.
because on the one hand, the 'book of nature' is telling you one thing. And on the other hand 'the one book to rule them all' is telling you something opposite.
I think you have few choices when that happens:
a) you ignore the contradiction and pretend nothing has happened (what I think most people do. Its too much work to do otherwise).
b) you pretend there is no "inherent" conflict and "resolve" such contradictions with creative re-reading of the bible ("circles" become spheres, "curtains" become sky, and all is back to normal). ("rational theology")
c) you conclude the bible is wrong and so is a fallible document. so even if you think there is a god, you cant know him with certainty (the classic christian existential crisis).
d) nature is a wrong, is a myth, a solipsistic screen projected in front of you by god to test your faith (classic revivalist position).
in all cases you are committed to "equating" theory and belief.
You mention "creative" re-reading. I guess you fail to realize that text can have a dual meaning, both the literal, and the figural. What about this do you think I pretend?
What's schizophrenic is attempting to find purpose while participating in a nihilistic culture. This leads to philosophy, and the assumption that there is meaning to life, despite the continual cultural suggestion that there isn't.
Step back and think about why you rationalize evolution.
Are you really that thick that you can't see faith with reasoning behind it?
You gotta admire timw4mail. Here's a hate-mongering fanatic who goes out of his way to prove he's an idiot. +1 for brainwashing.
You gotta admire timw4mail. Here's a hate-mongering fanatic who goes out of his way to prove he's an idiot. +1 for brainwashing.
One could just as easily say that the media and public school system is a form of brainwashing.
One could just as easily say that the media and public school system is a form of brainwashing.
I know where I stand.
Has anyone considered that maybe timw4mail is a Master Troll?
Wait, what, is someone challenging my title??Show Image(http://photo.joedlh.net/Images/RenFaire/RenaissanceFair_Jousting_18035.jpg)
In religion, the father syndrome is domesticated and kept alive. .
Has anyone considered that maybe timw4mail is a Master Troll?
Neumann ("hello, Neumann"), who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."
"Neumann ("hello, Neumann"), who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do.""
What's up with them?I wouldn't know where to start. But I guess that they're not so bad in that I haven't seen any reports of deviant behaviour involving young boys, as there have been multiple times with some other groups. I was simply pointing out that to live your life based on a story book is no different to the scientologists following the writings of a science-fiction writer. To each his own I guess. Me, I take responsibility for my own actions and care about what the people around me think, not someone that I can't see (and if I could see "him" what would he look like - if he created the world, he surely can't look human, but I suppose he probably shapeshifts if you interpret something a certain way).
Someone just needs to create a new, more appropriate religion for us to follow, for the things we don't know today, to replace those more archaic and corrupt ones. And why not?
No one has proof for god either existing or not.
I mean, noone knows, what comes after death.
Logical fallacy? We sure know some things going on in this world, but we really don't know a lot of things either and maybe there is really a supernatural force.
I mean, noone knows, what comes after death. This would be the ultimate goal for achieving knowledge. Maybe there are some very freaky weird things going on, we just don't know and the ignorant humans wouldn't even accept.
You'll never know, what is outside the cage if no one has ever seen anything behind the bars.
In my opinion atheism is just another kind or religion.
Whenever people think, they know what comes after death, I can merely laugh.
Either that or it was zapped out of nowhere by the magic guy in the clouds. Bit of a lose-lose situation really.
:) I was arguing-by-avatar ;D
The church of those who don't know and don't care? Seems like a strange reason to organize a sect.
How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?
I got this one guys, step down... and listen up-
I have a messy room (ok very messy), but If I were to clean it, it would be very sterile. However, if I just let it go (and I do) interesting things happen, new creatures come and mingle, art is formed! TAKE THAT ENTROPY, you are just doing my work for me! How could evolving order come from order? You need some entropy to spice things up! :)
If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance. Would you care to elaborate?
maybe you need to look up systems theory and chaos theory. The question of how order comes out of apparent disorder is a big topic in the sciences and is the basis of a lot of physics and math.
Yep, because the millions of children that go blind or die sooo deserved it...
Assuming the Bible is true, its your soul, and eternal torment. But that's your call.
I rarely encounter people these days that seem to take such stock in the bible.
yeah especially with the economy, the way it is and all.....
Can I ask you what your take is on human slavery? Selling daughters to other men? Stuff like that?
"Usually I follow the Judao-Christian ethic of 'Thou shalt not kill'. But, that's just me."
A little OT, but this is just silly. It would seem that, in the end, the suicidal got exactly what they wanted.
If a religious person starts hate talk about the sexuality of others, it's a sure sign he likes to **** little boys.
...Of course, many things are "statistically improbable" (including, hopefully, the probability of me dying within the next few minutes by burning up in the atmosphere of Jupiter)...
I would never say that religion is responsible for the majority of bad stuff that has happened in the world, I would however say that it's responsible for a disproportionately large number of bad stuff relative to other philosophies, pre-occupations etc.
Maybe god is real and he created us by accident and is unaware of our existence, one day he'll see us; "Damn fungus on one of my floating balls", fshhhh... end of life.
I think dinosaurs were around people before the time of the flood.
How come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? How come there was no room on the ark for the dinosaurs?
Has anyone considered that maybe timw4mail is a Master Troll?
I figured since so many people look to the bible there must be something justifiable there.
a common mistake
But, it sounds like its acceptable to pick and choose what applies and what doesn't based on human morality.
just like everthing else in life it's just a matter of convenience
But its impossible to claim god's actions beyond our judgement when it is our judgement that controls what we believe god does.
fine I will stop being a puppet, do I have to think now?
... once life on the earth becomes the entrance test to enter heaven, that person becomes a true nihilist.
pssst...the answer is "d"
When this world only exists to serve man and man's greatest hope is to find happiness in an existance after this, this existance loses all value. Forests can be leveled, sinners can be slaughtered, wars can be waged, because this is all meaningless outside of the completely internal, imaginary, and irrational drive to get ino a heaven that man invented.
Yeah, but.... my heavin will be awesome cuz I am really, really creative :)
I'll forego any more questions. The lack of answers gave me my answers.
Everyone will get that ultimate proof sooner or later but he or she won't be able to tell someone anymore, because dead people usually don't talk.
And lets keep it that way! I can't stand half the crap living people say =P
As long as everyone has just nothing more than estimations, there will be no justifing for anything catholic or atheistic.
that's GUESSTIMATIONS to you mister!
Note: A growing tree is not a proof of god. He didn't write his name on it, so no one really knows where the tree comes from or who let it grow.
correct, its "Joey <3 Sarah's" tree, and it was carved pretty deep too!
Just saying everything we don't understand or don't know yet must be god is just cheap and lame.
pssst hey kid commmeeeer,*opens trenchcoat* you wanna buy a bible?
Thinking of someone supernatural protecting me is lame either, because there is no pattern for people with bad luck or without.
Nope, I'm pretty sure I have consistently bad luck
It is just action and reaction. If you are a bad dude, you won't acquire many positive things and there is always someone worse, who might be able to kick your ass. If you mess with people a lot, you create wrath and someday you are the one beeing messed with or you just have luck.
Dats why we jusss give dem damn kids guns and send em off ta skool!
You can be a good guy either but that won't protect you from beeing messed with.
Thats why good kids are strapped! uhhh... no wait...
That is all. Doing good things merely for some religion, it is just dissimulation and in the end you do it just for yourself.
Doing something good for the sake of mankind is the real thing. Religious or not. Who cares?
....Maybe in our last breath we're creating a mind loop which will appear for us lasting forever (you can dream 5minutes and the dream seems to last for hours). Beats me....
Crap! that sounds more scary than death! Spooky I say, spooky!
...Maybe I'm just sticking to this because of the fear of death. To be frank, I really hope, that something cool is waiting, but I'm trying not to drown in my phantasy. It is really hard to imagine, beeing non-existent though. I think I'll just find out.
If someone believes there comes somethin or nothing after death... based on what? You cannot shoot a person and say, you just had the feeling it was neccessary.
Those feelings are somehow hideous, if you ask me.
They are biased, clouded thoughts and differ from person to person.
But as a scientist, you have to prove a theory before believing in it.
Pictures or it didn't happen.
Ok, so if anyone happens to want to know what Scientology is ACTUALLY about, you can take a look here. (http://www.scientology.org/index.html)
And yes, there is a mention of "Thetan" but it is used to denote the human spirit. Theta meaning energy, Thetan meaning a being of energy. Comes from the Greek symbol.
Funnily enough, I did the Scientology personality test the other day for the lulz. Unfortunately they did not tell me whether I'm as cool as Tom Cruise at the end, but leaving that aside, I have some questions for you -
1) What is the obsession with Scientology and Muscle twitches? I was asked at least three times during the quiz whether or not I suffered from them.
2) I was asked "Are you rarely undisturbed by 'noise off' " Can you translate this into English plx?
3) Are you trolling?
lol what were you doing taking the test?!
Seriously, if you want proof I will give it to you, but what do you want? A picture of one of the Scientology books next to my keyboard? With me in it? Do you want a picture of all the books? Really, I'll provide if you want, just tell me what it is that would be satisfactory for you.
Come on, really? Something that I can actually do.
Well I tried. Again, if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask. I will answer them to the best of my ability.
I am currently about half-way to clear. My father is on OT 7.
Most people spend no money at all by getting student auditing.
I apologize if I offended anyone with any of my statements. My only intention was to defend my religion when I saw false things posted [...]
since there are very few people who seem open to even asking questions and I loved having someone to have a conversation with about it.
Those things have nothing to do with Scientology.
Now with that out of the way: If you were to look a little closer you would realize that those claims about Scientology have nothing to do with OT 7. They are claimed to be(falsely) the materials for OT 3. Either way I have seen the materials for the all the OT levels since my father has been through them all and none of them contain anything even vaguely similar to that.
Unfortunately I don't think I'm even supposed to know them(I think my dad broke a rule there) so no I can't post exactly what is in them. What I can say though is that they are just extended auditing techniques similar to what I have already explained in my responses to Bollwerk. They are techniques that just need more sensitive work, making use of more of the ideas that can be found at the Scientology.org website that I linked earlier. Look under Dianetics. It is a more advanced form of that and only that.
I understand what you mean about religions in general but you will find that if you go to a Scientology Org(organization, we don't call them churches) the people you will meet there are anything but closed. In every major org there are about 40 displays with movies playing that explain the basics of Scientology. Those same movies are on the website. If you want information they will give it to you for sure, just try it. If you don't then you have no grounds to say that they are a closed organization.
No, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling the internet sources you use liars.
Same as non-existent substances in pills help ill people to get well as long they believe they are there (placebos), a non-existent god can help people to cope with problems, go trough hard times, and master their lives, no?
Islam is wrong in its current interpretation like the crusade of the christs decades ago or other things.Exactly! This was always a problem... Unfortunately this old texts leave a lot room for interpretation, probably on purpose, so they fit in a lot different cultures/regions/times. But of course this poses the danger of misrepresentation (often on purpose) -> twisting stuff -> using it as propaganda -> using it as tool to control people or poison their minds, like Muslim extremists do it right now to get people on their side for their war against the west. Bad, yes. But, same can be done (and it was done more than once) by politicians and their propaganda, its not a thing of religion, but certain humans and their motivations... I think, even if religion wouldn't exist, they would simply "exploit" something different to reach their goals!
I'll call it Macco's razor.
I like how you put the 'postmodernists' in quotes - it is as usual, not the actual postmodernist philosophers who are the problem but their fairly uncritical hounds. Which is ironic when the issue is a critical view on epistemology. :D
It's so hard to critizice your own criticism, isn't it?
As Randi put it: "Me, a sceptic? I doubt it!"
:)
What fascinated me was how the far-right's arguments in this regard were so similar to the far-left's arguments.
I disagree. If there is a God, he must be highly intelligent. He will respect intelligent people, who make sensible choices for rational reasons.
Therefore God will have more respect for atheists than for religious people.
Bullocks. Saying that in stuch strong words where you condemn sane people who think differently is as silly as joining a religious group. I choose Adams' side (http://www.nbaa.tv/Religion/Atheists/DouglasAdams/Interview-American-Atheists.html). Religion is something made up, to explain the lightning in the sky. Deal with it, move on. Otherwise provide the evidence. Which you will not. Until you provide the evidence, religion is pure fantasy. Prove me otherwise.
i believe that my existence wasnt a mistake or a chance, but wont let my belief be bogged down by religon...
Not that I disagree with you, but "evidence" is from the realm of scientific discourse.
Not that I disagree with you, but "evidence" is from the realm of scientific discourse. An equivalent would be someone who believes in religion saying, "Science is an attempt to explain what the gods hath wrought. Until you provide a revelation/prophecy/holy book science is pure techne..."
One thing does puzzle me. I know my body and brain are made up of cells, molecules, atoms, etc. following the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. I know that people's and animals' behaviour can be explained by survival instincts. If I observe other people I can possibly believe they are nothing more than complex biological machines.
But as much as I accept that viewpoint, it doesn't explain how I have thoughts and feelings. Maybe thoughts can be explained away, but some emotions are more difficult to reduce. Why do I feel that I'm a person, not just a thing? Is it really possible for a biological computer (my brain) to delude itself into thinking it has feelings?
i believe that my existence wasnt a mistake or a chance...
You have no soul, webwit. :wink:
my friend has gotten back into christianity and been confirmed, supposedly she's gonna try and convince me to get confirmed for easter sunday next year.
"Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build
your own, and let it grow, be like Emacs. Empty
your mind, be formless, shapeless - like Emacs.
If you put Emacs in a cup it becomes the cup, if
you put into a bottle it becomes the bottle. You
put Emacs into a teapot it becomes the teapot.
Now, Emacs can flow or it can crash. Be Emacs, my friend"
As an Emacs fænboi I must say: Emacs.
I live by the following sentences:
heh you blow with the wind huh...
like i said i believe our reality isnt chance, but i dont believe in religon.
If you strip everything down to the barest, it's all about metaphysics. Representation and interpretation.
I'm looking into the abyss and nothing is staring back at me! what will keep me from falling in?!
So what the difference between quantum physics and religion?
(bites tongue)
I'm not sure how, for example, the replacement of quantum physics by an ever more complex theory would effect your happiness in life. In that case, it's best to hang on to a god, snub evolution and chant songs.
Show Image(http://mimg.ugo.com/200804/4299/heston-ten-commandments.jpg)
Therefore God will have more respect for atheists than for religious people.
I Belong To The Church Of LegoShow Image(http://www.myblogstorage.net/milowerx/lego1.bmp)Show Image(http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2006-01/lego-church.jpg)
for rabble rousers, tomorrow is "draw mohammad day" on facebook. Tho it should be called freedom of speech day, more accurately.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=112062032162838
Apparently Pakistan banned Facebook over that... I didn't know that the Taliban had won the civil war already...
Intel banned Facebook because of all the protests over copper mining (or sumpthin).
WASHINGTON—In a decisive and vulgar 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court once again upheld the constitution's First Amendment this week, calling the freedom of expression among the most "inalienable and important rights that a mother****er can have."
"I'm beginning to wonder if you really understand what 'abridging the freedom of speech' means at all," said Stevens, a 34-year veteran of the court known for his often-nuanced interpretations of the First Amendment. "I'm also wondering whether you and your fat-faced plaintiffs over there need to have some respect for constitutionally protected expression ****ed into your empty hick skulls."
Supreme Court Upholds Freedom Of Speech In Obscenity-Filled Ruling (http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/)
Perfect Onion.
Love that guy.
I believe in the Lord and there's nothing you all can do about it.
I believe in the Lord and there's nothing you all can do about it.I respect your First Amendment rights not to have the government telling you what you are allowed to believe, or what you must believe.
I believe in the Lord and there's nothing you all can do about it.
The next time I lose marks in a maths exam because I said that 2 + 2 = 5, I should stay by my ineptitude... These are my beliefs, man!
I believe in the Lord and there's nothing you all can do about it.
Problem is YOU want to impinge your personal feelings on all of US. If you succeed, america will become UN-free.How does he want to do that?
You really, really hate america and freedom, dont you.
How does he want to do that?
I wouldn't count outlawing abortion. Because then those Northerners who imposed their personal feeling that slavery was wrong also hated America and freedom - and that's not what the history books tell us. Using not being born yet as an excuse to kill people like kittens may be just as bad as using dark skin as an excuse to buy and sell people like horses.
Maybe there is more to the abortion issue than that, but if you start letting everyone define for themselves who is or isn't human, it isn't just dolphins and fetuses that will be unsafe; black people and Jews will be unsafe too.
I never saw anything about abortion in the Constitution.
If we outlawed abortion, we'd be nothing like the Middle East. I know people who've been there and served there. The US isn't run by madmen who censure Youtube because it a video shows a picture of Muhammed.
there is a great quote from the (now old) tv series babylon 5, which sums up my position on religion quite well:
"if i take a lamp and shine toward the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall.
The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding.
Too often we assume the light on the wall is god, but the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search.
The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the revelation upon seeing it.
Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing.
What we perceive as god is the by-product of our search for god. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, pure and unblemished, not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes, we stand in front of the light and assume we are the center of the universe -- god looks astonishingly like we do! -- or we turn to look at our shadow and assume all is darkness.
If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose -- which is use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all its beauty and all it flaws, and in so doing, better understand the world around us."
-- g'kar
It's run by madmen who censor a South Park episode because it shows a picture of Mohammad.
amidoinitrite?
I never saw anything about abortion in the Constitution.
I miss Timw4mail, he was the sort of lovable clueless idiot, unlike MW who is just going through the motions...
I've no idea who this man is, but he makes some interesting points
so here's a related question, speaking of the culture wars -- the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. The right wing likes to read this as an absolute without any context or limits. Louisiana's guv'ner just signed a bill on this basis allowing guns in church. SO -- if you read the second amendment literally in that way -- by what right can we prevent people from boarding planes with guns strapped to their hips?
Its a serious question, because i think it would be hilarious to insist - as the right wingers insist - on the absolute sanctity of the second amendment on airplanes in this day and age.
That all said, I don't think America's strange obsession with guns, and its huge gun crime problem is a product of the ubiquity of weapons. In Switzerland, every grown man is issued a military assault rifle and is encouraged to go shooting with it regularly. Yet Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world. Obviously the issue is not really straightforward at all.It may be noted that the guns are army property, the ammunition is sealed, inspected, and counted - so while these guns might be used in crimes of passion, they wouldn't be used to commit murders of stealth.
I believe in the Lord and there's nothing you all can do about it.
The worrying thing about religion is that if the non-existence of God was objectively proven tomorrow, religious people would be obliged to reject it.
I would never normally try to prove a religious person wrong. But you issued the challenge.
What I can do is point out to you that your reasons for believing in the Lord are irrational.
Whether God exists or not does not affect this fact. There is no rational argument for believing in God, nor for following any organised religion.
There are basically three reasons for believing in God:
- Being indoctrinated with the belief from childhood so it has become core to your way of looking at things and you are no longer able to think about the matter objectively.
- Simple fear of dying. You can't tolerate the idea that your life simply ends, and all the sad implications it entails. So you reject the idea out of cowardice and are forced to believe the opposite.
- You have a religious experience.
Of these three, only the last reason deserves any respect. Of course when people claim to have religious experiences it is usually dismissed as mental illness or confusion induced by some external influence. Interestingly the Church (in Western culture at least) is normally the first to voice lack of faith in these religious experiences.
I know. Too Long Didn't Read. So in summary:
Your reasons for believing are irrational. You know they are, and this disturbs you, no matter how much you boast that nothing can be done about your belief.
Evidence of not only how it is a control scheme, but a very effective one at that.
Aha! BUT if you really think about it, isn't "Evidence" itself (insomuch as how scientific method claims to define rules of compliance) also a control scheme?
I am reminded of an article I read a few months or so ago, in Wired Magazine I think, which was an excellent analysis of the real estate market going balls up and how it really happened because of a misconception as far as the rules to evaluate risk in speculation. The associated risk was being gaged essentially by using a map of patterned history and conclusions drawn on the relationships observed. The map suggested a correlation of circumstances that had proved the magic formula for successful speculation for a long while. If this indicator said x then historically y would be the outcome and if factor abc was in play then historically z would result. This created a problem because what the historical map did not so readily expose was the interdependency between those factors which was vitally important since if only smaller part of that abc factor were to alter (say a1bc instead) then the resulting effect (which perhaps had not yet been witnessed or included in the particular timespan of historical precedence) was affected disproportionately by the change and catastrophe followed.
Statistics lie simply because they cannot tell the whole truth, and whilst the number people fundamentally did understand this, that there was a fallacy in the pattern of relationships that was up until that point a formula for success they weren't really able to make it clear to the marketing people how it was so. The marketing people were not nearly as well equipped to grasp the inherent danger and exacerbated the problem further by overburdening the market by using this highly successful system of risk analysis.
I am a little reserved about the entire science of "science" as a pure and incorrigible paradigm. Evidence may stand as such just because it always has. Though we often apply past evidence as rule, there is a fallacy inherent in that concept, if only for the simple reason that we do not understand the ultimate minutia of the universe and its inner workings. It is wiser to remember that just because "it always has" in no way guarantees that "it always will."
I propose that in that way our "scientific Evidence" is a faith based system also- and also implemented to allow us the illusion of "control."
Science is nothing like faith. You cannot propose ludicrous theories and get away with it. Every statement a scientist makes is scrutinized so carefully by hundreds and hundreds of stick-up-ass peers and tested robustly. Perhaps in the ****ing 1500s there was some unity between Church and science that caused some dumb theories like "The Earth is flat!" to be accepted but practises like that have all but disappeared thanks to a process called scientific method.
If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE,Of course evolution is science.
Of course evolution is science.
The facts of the fossil record, the facts about the DNA of different creatures, are all quite compatible with the common descent of all life. Furthermore, many creatures have characteristics showing they weren't engineered from scratch, but that instead nature improvised needed abilities from what would have already been there in their ancestors: the famous essay "The Panda's Thumb" by Stephen Jay Gould illustrates that.
Attempts to use science to argue against evolution, on the other hand, while sometimes superficially plausible, are still so badly done, so lacking in objectivity, impartiality, and honesty as to show exactly why Creation is no longer worthy of consideration as a scientific hypothesis.
It isn't science - it's the opposite of science - when you start with the religion your parents taught you as a little child, and try to shoehorn the whole universe to fit into it.
There's a fine line between OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, and PHILOSOPHY.
If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE, then you're living in a fantasy world called Jean Chretien's Liberal Montreal.
The notion of the earth being flat is something that arose later on, even the ancients knew the world was round (even if they did uphold mild religious beliefs), take a look at any ancient Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, or Roman documents for proof. So don't even try using that argument, that just shows arrogance to ancient knowledge. Why? Because as each generation passes, knowledge is FORGOTTEN.
A quick example is smoking. 400 years ago people knew it was bad and affected THE LIVER (with help of science WITHOUT philosophy), well, how come in this modern era of blooming science they didn't know? Because they were arrogant and mixed together fanciful notions of really strange things with what they called science.
Okay hold the phone for just a minute. This discussion can have certain merit provided that we don't end up arguing semantics when we think we are arguing concept. How exactly for the purposes of the discussion at hand are we defining "religion"? "Science" is a little less open to interpretation, but even from the brief exchange that I have chimed in on I have noticed several different possible perceptions of what we are referring to with the word "religion."
Are we defining it as specifically the Judeo-Christian organized church as a political entity? Any philosophical view which holds that something beyond our current consciousness is perhaps in play besides chance and the laws of physics? The idea that there is more to reality than what we currently experience?
How are we defining GOD? as the Judeo-Christian father figure holy trinity old guy with a white beard up in the sky? or any conceptualization that we are no more than temporary arrangements of atomic particles that for reason bound in science just so happen to be and that there is no more or less than that? Or any organized groupthink with some prescribed doctrine of behavior?
If we are here at this small community can agree that it is not necessary or harmful that others have a different code of ethos or sexual preference as individuals and think that we can coexist without having to be all of one mind, then to attack a system of belief that can not actually be refuted through hard evidence is just as foolish as it is to staunchly defend one that cannot be supported through the same means. The whole exercise is futile on either side as what is ultimately lacking on both ends is substantiated evidence that is irrefutable proof that faith is or isn't justified.
All in all it appears to me that it is of little consequence to us here and now if there is or isn't a GOD of any sort. And further more, it is of equally little consequence to pursue the ever elusive horizon of knowledge that will forever be out of reach to science just as the zealots are forever out of reach of their GOD.
In terms of practicality to our current, not future, existence, is the pursuit of the understanding of the universe any more useful than looking to the Heavens for a GOD? Do we really think the modeling of the space between quarks is adding to the benefit of the human condition? I deeply believe that we cannot hope to understand our surroundings as long as we count ourselves separate from them.
Really the only thing that matters is what is now and we are so busy chasing gods and ghosts and knowledge that we lack the wisdom which lets us see clearly now. In my mind Science and Religion are equally culpable since neither one is helping us learn to live happily and in peace with our surroundings but both are creating conflict between our consciousness and our world and each other.
There's a fine line between OBSERVABLE SCIENCE, and PHILOSOPHY.
If you're saying that junk where they "propose" macro-evolution (and the whole contradictory theories on abiogenesis) coupled with monkey-man stuff is SCIENCE, then you're living in a fantasy world called Jean Chretien's Liberal Montreal.
The notion of the earth being flat is something that arose later on, even the ancients knew the world was round (even if they did uphold mild religious beliefs), take a look at any ancient Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician, or Roman documents for proof. So don't even try using that argument, that just shows arrogance to ancient knowledge. Why? Because as each generation passes, knowledge is FORGOTTEN.
A quick example is smoking. 400 years ago people knew it was bad and affected THE LIVER (with help of science WITHOUT philosophy), well, how come in this modern era of blooming science they didn't know? Because they were arrogant and mixed together fanciful notions of really strange things with what they called science.
I propose that in that way our "scientific Evidence" is a faith based system also- and also implemented to allow us the illusion of "control."
1 ...Do I need to disprove the existence of a monster who lives underneath my bed?
2 ....It's that narrow minded religious oafs seem to be a leading promulgator of pointless bigotry in the world...
3 ...It's more than just scientific matters. It's a whole way of looking at things...
....If you want a definition of science, it's the pursuit of truth. Truth exists, God may well not for all we know...
...I grew up and live in a country where religion has led to unspeakable horrors perpetrated over hundreds of years... I can barely imagine what the people in the Middle East have to put up with. To say that science is no better than religion is ludicrious.
Science is a self-correcting belief system. Religion is a self-perpetuating belief system. I know which I'd rather be a slave to.
I'm with Bertrand on this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_Teapot)...
.
Damn, and I started this topic over a year ago.
I'm so proud to see this thread I birthed grow up to be a strong, able-bodied topic. *sniff*
It's religion, though. It's not too hard to get people riled up over pure idiocy.
Its the being a slave part that is problematic with either. I think what each of us is attacking here is not the God of science or the God of religion but the people who are limited by their devotion to anything.
Damn, and I started this topic over a year ago.
If we are in search of truth, we can only find it for ourselves and not others, and your truth whether I perceive it or not is real to you and therefore relevant. The way I interact with you can only be productive if I account for that difference, and is likely to be more productive than attempting to alter your truth, especially by means that have already failed.
Surely at some point you have experience a "gut feeling" or had an intuition that turned out to be correct despite the inability to prove it? That is part of a spiritual awareness that often sees more clearly than our physical selves do, and very often we ignore that input rather than allowing it to be weighed in with the data we gather from our 5 senses, or worse- what we have been taught.
Truth exists and God may or may not. That is just it. Whether he does or doesn't is just as likely to be discovered in the lifespan of a man as is the possibility that we shall in that same lifespan be able to find Truth through the application of science, because as you say "it is more than that... it is an entire way of looking at things." RELIGION has been a large part of the discovery of Truth for countless people, even hand in hand with science, arguably more successfully than science has done alone. It would be highly irresponsible to dismiss religion as a whole because of zealots or those who twist and manipulate the faith of others for their own ends. Buddhism is often classified as religion, often as philosophy, and not as science, but it is known by those who practice as "the way" - a vehicle to truth. It is a method in practice to find truth in every conscious moment rather than at the end of a life or from attempting to know everything about the space between quarks. There are people who have found Truth who know nothing at all of physics and also nothing of religion at all. Perhaps it is the fact that they were unfettered by such impractical trivialities that they were able to do so.
I had actually been trying to point out that the pursuit of the understanding of the universe is just as POINTLESS as seeking the Holy Grail in terms of the time we have in this iteration of spirit (and I use Science -the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, that from nothing comes something but is nothing - as my foundation for the idea that there is more to our energy than what we are right now. I think our awareness is limited to the vessel of that energy in whatever form it may take.) My point was that as we live and breathe now neither one of those things is likely to yield the key to Truth, nor even better daily existence, and that the seeking of Truth through "standing on the shoulders of giants" in the manner that the fella in the video is talking about is equal folly as focusing on "life after death in the kingdom of heaven" since that time in the future has little bearing on what is going on around us.
The guy in the video even states that all this knowledge will have to be rediscovered in a whole new way. Probably the most significant thing he states in terms of something actionable is what he says about us being witness to "a very special time" (which would be in accordance with some spiritual or religious prophecies as well). It is very possible that we are at a crossroads in evolutionary space, where there are more tools at our disposal than ever before to "advance" as individuals, as a species, as a consciousness. To nitpick over whether ones neighbor uses the same tools as oneself is asinine and misdirected attention.
Here is the fallacy I was referring to. Science has dissallowed any other measure of evidence than by their own definition. The most truthful and provable thing that science can claim is that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence of God. Which is not the same thing as there being none at all. The personal weight which one attaches to that information is highly subjective.
hey, this is our go-to thread when we're having a slow week ;)
which was how it got started, IIRC ;)
In fact, it's starting to repeat itself at this stage.
There is no rational argument for ... following any organised religion.
I suppose we are talking about sincere faith as opposed to opportunism, or conforming to social norms.
Nonsense. Truth is an objective entity that exists separately from our ability to comprehend it. The people of ancient Greece believed that the Sun was a god pulled around in a chariot by a lesser god. This represented the sincere reasoning of a very rational and logical people. Was it true?
Often religious people will say that religion answers questions that science cannot answer. But in the vast majority of cases, this covers things where science's ability to not answer them is an assertion (eg. the question of where the universe came from) or explaining things that only need to be explained if the underlying religion was right in the first place (eg. what happens after death)
Gut feelings tend to reflect your own experiences and understanding of a situation, but at a level where you don't consciously realize the thought process that you went through. But to say that they are somehow 'spiritual' or above rational thought is wrong.
I don't think you can just look beyond the bad parts of religion. To this day, all sorts of bad things and downright stupidity is perpetuated because people hide behind the mask of blind faith, and all the rest of us are expected to follow the act.Then by the same token, one cannot simply ignore the benefits provided by faith and for that matter neither can one smply look past the bad parts of science. Science in its wholesome pure empiricality is devoid of morality and in that manner dangerous. Michael Crighton's books have a recurring theme of scientists acting on a course of unwise behavior because they CAN without pausing for a moment to wonder if they SHOULD. Right now much of my vegetable garden is in mortal peril and useless for consumption because of some sort of herbicide that is either in the commercial compost I purchased or being carried by drift on the wind. By the same measure as religious zealots there are those who would sacrifice the well being of many in pursuit of knowledge, for example (and here's a can of worms, sorry) animal experimentation.
If people do things for 'rational' reasons, then those reasons can be debated and shown to be wrong if necessary. With faith, people are right because they say they're right, and no one is allowed to do anything about it because it's 'important' to people or something. Whatever.Once again, your focus of frustration is not faith, but stubborn and pig headed individuals who are unable to think for themselves.
Truth is, I'm not really interested in what religious people believe, I'm interested in why they believe it. The constant battle between reason and what often boils down to stupidity is something that matters to me - because if people can be led to believe in God because the priest says so, then they'll believe or do anything. As Kishy pointed out, religion is a control mechanism, one that has been scarily effective at that.
There are some paths to the truth that are more accurate than others.
What about Galileo? don't think that just because science isn't going to discover the truth in the immediate future doesn't lend validity to the ideals of religious faith. You make it out that science is some sort of unprovoked attack on religion.
What about Galileo?
But what else is there? "Let's make up some stuff and force everyone to believe it". That's what religion boils down to in the end.
Ultimately you're reasoning against reason itself, and if you can't see why that's bad then you've proven pretty much everything I've said.
Your target here isn't religion or faith, it the politics of CHURCH you have a bone to pick with.
i dont know, we've never had a stripper from MENSA join the discussion before. I'm finding her posts fascinating. But I think everyone's taking it easy on her cuz we're all still hoping she'll break into a naked keyboard dance at some point ;) Voix? Would you like to oblige us and get that over with so we can get back to fighting about religion?
Erm, that looks a bit...not so right.
Religion != faith.
Religion is an organized group of people subscribing to a particular belief. It incorporates 'the church' (whichever one it is) by the nature of what it is (and accordingly, issues pertaining to 'the church' pertain to the religion itself, but not necessarily the faith shared by members of the religion).
Faith is having a belief in something without necessarily subscribing to a particular anything.
Agnostics, if you ask me, have a type of faith without religion.
The only part of that I might adjust is that while the Church is an organization under a religious umbrella, I wouldn't necessarily equate the two.
And are you really only like 21? (based on the last years comment about being a 20 year old)
If so you are to be commended. I wouldn't have guessed that by the way you conduct yourself. Kudos.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
You'd never get the keys unstuck and then it would be all my fault.:laugh:
Did it make them less than they were because they believed it to be? Seems like they managed some pretty scientific accomplishments despite the handicap. How are we better served by what we know?
If that is what I said (I am not sure it is)then it is not what I meant. Only that there may be a level of perception that is currently not scientifically quantifiable and used that as an example of non-conscious realization which may be applicable to a sense of spirituality.
Then by the same token, one cannot simply ignore the benefits provided by faith and for that matter neither can one smply look past the bad parts of science. Science in its wholesome pure empiricality is devoid of morality and in that manner dangerous. Michael Crighton's books have a recurring theme of scientists acting on a course of unwise behavior because they CAN without pausing for a moment to wonder if they SHOULD. Right now much of my vegetable garden is in mortal peril and useless for consumption because of some sort of herbicide that is either in the commercial compost I purchased or being carried by drift on the wind. By the same measure as religious zealots there are those who would sacrifice the well being of many in pursuit of knowledge, for example (and here's a can of worms, sorry) animal experimentation
And here again I can state that faith is not the problem but the manipulation of faith by man.
Once again, your focus of frustration is not faith, but stubborn and pig headed individuals who are unable to think for themselves.
Not quite. I am making a distinction to help focus your hostility at the proper recipient. Your target here isn't religion or faith, it the politics of CHURCH you have a bone to pick with. And well you should. I just think its important to note that it isn't belief in God that makes people stubborn or stupid. Its just that God is a common excuse for the behavior of those that already are.
By rational man. It is man that is the malevolence, not faith.
Then by the same token, one cannot simply ignore the benefits provided by faith and for that matter neither can one smply look past the bad parts of science. Science in its wholesome pure empiricality is devoid of morality and in that manner dangerous.Yes, but that doesn't lead to me to be hostile to, or even suspicious of, science.
And here again I can state that faith is not the problem but the manipulation of faith by man. By rational man. It is man that is the malevolence, not faith.Generally, I would agree with this point. But with a few caveats.
I don't think that "faith" is bad, though, but the faith that I don't think is bad is rather narrowly defined. Belief that life has meaning, that other people matter, that right and wrong are real - that sort of thing.
i think we should petition tim to come back to gh. we need more true believers around here. for us to poop on.Um...hi.Show Image(http://mynameisearlkress.com/weblog/triumph01.jpg)
Um...hi.
Slaughter the fattened calf, the prodigal son has returned!
Um...hi.
l hate [strike]athiests[/strike] ch_123[/b][/i]
How are these things mutually exclusive with a lack of religion?They are not. As is, in fact, my own personal case.
l hate athiests
I thank God I'm an atheist!
How the hell can someone hate atheists on the basis of being atheist?
Atheism, but the very nature of what it is, is non-confrontational, non-offensive and does not discriminate. It is a label for a group (not organized) which have, if nothing else, one common trait: they do not believe anything in particular with regards to creationism.
You'd have nothing to do here on the forum if I wasn't here.
Not really. Maybe we'd have real discussions without you and your bum buddies hurf-durfing at every oppurtunity.
Well you see, I could say that the evolutionists and creationists aren't atheists but religious people. Whereas, true atheism is a belief that upholds NOTHING; a neutral stance on everything, including man's existence.
Nah. But really, almost every single of your posts follows a Microsoft Windows post. It's kind of funny.
Well you see, I could say that the evolutionists and creationists aren't atheists but religious people. Whereas, true atheism is a belief that upholds NOTHING; a neutral stance on everything, including man's existence.You're thinking of agnosticism. However, even an agnostic is likely to "believe in" evolution, on the basis that, if we can't know if there's a God, then life could only have gotten here in a way that is compatible with there not being a God.
hurf-durfing .
I think your referring to agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism implies disbelief in God, whereas agnosticism doesn't claim to know (or care).
tim are you veering towards agnosticism?
You were trying to make an argument about the relativity of truth. But truth is not relative, it is absolute. Some[thing] is either so or it is not. A simple binary operation.
That turns out not to be the case. In the totally rational universe of quantum physics, Schrodinger's cat is truthfully both alive and dead at the same time. It is both so and not so. The truth is relative, relative to an event that cannot be measured until the box is open.The cat knows.
so here's a related question, speaking of the culture wars -- the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. The right wing likes to read this as an absolute without any context or limits. Louisiana's guv'ner just signed a bill on this basis allowing guns in church. SO -- if you read the second amendment literally in that way -- by what right can we prevent people from boarding planes with guns strapped to their hips?
The 2nd Amendment is something that is completely taken out of context by the pro-gun side in the US. IIRC, it's to do with letting a militia stockpile arms for use against a tyrannical government.
There's all sorts of problems with this. On a very practical level, when the US constitution was drafted, wars were fought by a group of men with muskets at one end of the field, and another group men with muskets at the other.
Nowadays wars are fought with tanks, aircraft, helicopters, missiles and all sorts of fun things, and really, it doesn't matter whether federal law dictates that your AR-15 can only hold 5, 10, 30 or even 100 rounds without being reloaded - if you run into a tank you're ****ed either way.
If the second amendment was taken to its logical conclusion in today's terms, the government would subsidize the cost of buying a battle tank for private citizens. It would also allow private ownership of plastic explosives, anti-aircraft artillery and anti-tank missiles, and all the other things that are necessary for fighting a modern war. I think in reality that basic public safety overcomes this need to fight against this imaginary tyrant.
Which leads onto the deeper philosophical problem of the amendment - it was written by a group of revolutionaries who had usurped British power - of course they were going to say that it was right for the people to overthrow the government with revolutionary means. It also must be contextualized with the relative immaturity of democracy, and the fact that revolutions and general instability were all the rage back then in western nations. Fast forward hundreds of years, is it really right that people living in a democracy should be afforded the right to lead violent revolution against their government if they feel they are being tyrannized? Who decides if the government is a tyranny? Obviously it isn't going to be the government in question, so is it up to the people on the ground to decide? Should Timothy McVeigh have been acquitted under his 2nd amendment rights? The idea is comical as it dangerous.
That all said, I don't think America's strange obsession with guns, and its huge gun crime problem is a product of the ubiquity of weapons.
On religion, what kind of a god would give us faculties of reason and ethic and go on to have us contradict those gifts?
At the risk of saying "But I've said that too!", what I say sometimes is that when people say things like God is cruel, they are applying human (i.e. insignificant) morals and ethics to a cosmic power - apples and oranges. What's cruel to us says nothing about said cosmic power's intent.
Okay, but I think that point raises two questions:There is none. That's why we prefer to think of him as a kindly old man who puts us in a room with our loved ones when we die.
1. in that case, what is the human interest (ie, perceived benefit) in listening to a supposed personal god who is either arbitrary, cruel, or simply inscrutable?
2. arent we applying human standards whenever we talk about god in any fashion? What other standards could we ever possibly apply on the topic? Even to imagine god as cruel, arbitrary, inscrutable, is to apply words and concepts from the human universe of experience. So we can only talk about god in our terms, even when we imagine him to be cruel and arbitrary etc. There's no other way to imagine god but on our terms.That's exactly my point. We cannot transcend the human universe of experience, therefore we cannot define what "God" is (is as done in religious books). If there is a "God", it's a cosmic power much higher than us and we cannot describe it.
when people say things like God is cruel, they are applying human (i.e. insignificant) morals and ethics to a cosmic power - apples and oranges.I disagree.
Thus, the notion of a God for Whom it is right and proper to look on without interfering as a woman is raped is exactly and precisely as absurd as the notion of a God Who can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift. Both are logical contradictions.
would your number one priority be stopping an event that is so insignificant?If one is so omnipotent and omniscient that one is aware of the fall of every sparrow, priority does not enter into it.
You're doing it again. You're calling the notion of a "God" absurd because he doesn't adhere to the same morals as you. Rape is definitely wrong and despicable but tell me, if you were a cosmic power, would your number one priority be stopping an event that is so insignificant?
As to God's motives and the issues of stopping horrible things from happening: to the first who can know? and the second is pretty much covered under the concept of free will isn't it? If you subscribe to the traditional judeo-christian idea of God, then wasn't the whole point of the decision to love God the fact that you had the option not to? I imagine, now that I think about it, that there would be little point in creating life that you would then control in terms of such micromanagement as preventing rape, especially intelligent life, because then wouldn't that defeat the purpose? On the other hand, there are some out there who would say that such tragedies and horrible things HAVE been prevented by divine intervention, though that would be usually in the case of a particular individual rather than in general.
Christianity really wasn't designed to be analyzed...
i'd wonder about his motives, his omniscience, and even his supposed goodness.
given that my own idea of hell pretty much consists of being stuck in a repetitive loop for all eternity (presented in a short story by Stephen King once, I think, having to do with deja vu)
I am still of the mind though that what we do matters in a grander scale. Kind of like the traditional understanding of Karma.
It is through that filter that I take some of the sermons in at the local church when I am in the mood. Does that make me religious?
Did anybody else ever watch that lady on tv who speaks like 22 languages and has late night show on where she translates the bible from all these different perspectives? Pastor Scott or something?
She's utterly dizzying to watch but if you can follow what she's talking about at all its actually pretty interesting.
As to God's motives and the issues of stopping horrible things from happening: to the first who can know? and the second is pretty much covered under the concept of free will isn't it? If you subscribe to the traditional judeo-christian idea of God, then wasn't the whole point of the decision to love God the fact that you had the option not to?
Brings to mind my friend who is about the most employable person to walk the earth. She's brilliant and dedicated and hard working and did not get the job she wanted most in the summer of 2001 but offers from all others she applied for. The odds favored her being hired very heavily and yet she was not. Turns out, that job would have put her on the 100th floor of the WTC that fall. I find that significant, since she is also never late or absent from things. Gave me goosebumps when she told me too.
trivia: Did you know she was a former porn-star? :) Its true, look it up. I think her full name now is melissa scott.
i've watched her a few times, fascinated as you were, but in the end I actually decided that she never finishes a point that she starts; she just goes on "interrupting herself" and therefore never gets to complete a thought - but i also think that is by design (ie, cuz she doesnt have any full thoughts to finish, i decided). but yea, her method is fascinating to watch, and the continuous stream of tidbits she throws out, are sometimes interesting unto themselves, even if they never contribute towards forming a cohesive complete thought in the end. ..
if you think about it tho, in the course of our daily lives, we probably 'escape death' a hundred times, and its only cuz we dont know about it that we think its not happening.
See, now, this is the kind of thing that calls for purification via electro-shock re-education... Or perhaps a revival of burning people at the stake, if we take a page from their own book.I don't think so - I think it performs a helpful service in bringing out of the woodwork any Muslims who have a terrorist mentality, and who are incapable of living peacefully in a free society where their religion, like any other, is subject to vigorous and critical debate.
Where in the heck does it say to do this kind of stuff in the Bible?
I don't think so - I think it performs a helpful service in bringing out of the woodwork any Muslims who have a terrorist mentality, and who are incapable of living peacefully in a free society where their religion, like any other, is subject to vigorous and critical debate.
Or, to put it more clearly: I presume you would be among the first to object if some Christian fanatic murdered Andres Serrano.
i'm with quadibloc.
its not nice, what they're doing. Its unecessarily provocative, yes. I myself wouldnt do it.
but I recognize that its very different from murdering people. In any number of middle eastern and asian "islamist regime" nations today, they would not in fact stop with the book. They'd do it to the person, they do it daily to non-muslim people. WIth official sanction for violent religious segregation. They dont stop with the book.
So yea, its a strong statement for this group to make - but its just a statement. The reaction will tell a lot about the difference. Christianity has, after all, grudgingly come into the modern world in the main; while islam in the main has not. Thats the difference that the world is grappling with.
yea, i wouldnt do what they're doing myself, but i do recognize the difference between burning a book and telling people they suck, vs actually killing them off.
Its like if you wanted to draw the prophet in order to make a point about free speech. I'm for that too. And the reaction tells a lot.
If these christians were rounding up the muslims in the neighborhood and at swordpoint making them convert or die - thats when they would be no different from the islamists. And thats when the federal govt would in fact intervene (unlike in islamist regimes where their governments would applaud or look the other way).
we leftists talk so much about how what the west has done has caused these extreme reactions in the east. Well, how about what the east has done causing extreme reactions in the west? This is a case in point for the latter, I think. If we can recognize the former, we should be able to recognize and understand the latter.
back in the day
but to completely throw oneself at the idea that Islam is inherently evil
, and far moreso than other religions inevitably results in people using it as a platform for racism.
And now terrorism has put the Islamic world under such an intense spotlight that it may have less than a decade to move from the Middle Ages to the 20th Century to avoid disaster. It isn't fair.
But that doesn't stop it from being real.
I think you're a loser.
I'll have to second that. I'm sure plenty of Muslims died in the tragedy as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus, Athiests, or whatever. Muslims didn't bring down the WTC, extremist terrorists did. There's a difference.
Nice troll, BTW.
I think you're a loser.
2. arent we applying human standards whenever we talk about god in any fashion? What other standards could we ever possibly apply on the topic? Even to imagine god as cruel, arbitrary, inscrutable, is to apply words and concepts from the human universe of experience. So we can only talk about god in our terms, even when we imagine him to be cruel and arbitrary etc. There's no other way to imagine god but on our terms.Voltaire and Nietzsche took it one step further. They each asserted (in different ways) that if indeed Man is made in God's image, then the nature of God can be extrapolated by studying Man.
At the risk of saying "But I've said that too!", what I say sometimes is that when people say things like God is cruel, they are applying human (i.e. insignificant) morals and ethics to a cosmic power - apples and oranges. What's cruel to us says nothing about said cosmic power's intent.
If we assume that we were made by God, and we were meant to love and worship him, and that there is some sort of higher purpose for the bad things in the world, why would he create us in a way that would prevent us from understanding him fully? Surely we would be able to worship him better if we had half an idea what he was doing?
You'd prefer they build a nice shiny Christian cathedral in that location instead of an objectionable and disrespectful thing like a mosque?
a christian cathedral is just as objectionable and disrespectful. I've never step foot in the ones near there, but I did use them as comparision images for digital cameras, when digi cams were becoming mainstream and they were just using 3megapixel sensors, those churches look nice and i'm sure w/ the money they plan to use on that mosque (12million?) it's gonna look nice too.
Sad part is, that when this mosque gets made it'll be made b4 any ground zero building is ever put up, that is the real sad fact that 9 years after, it's still only 2 square footprints.
It's not going to be a specially designed mosque or anything. It's part of a 13-story (I think) building that's going to include a gym and some form of association as well as a mosque.
well they've been praying there for a while, do they just want to like official sanction it as a mosque and get the tax break benefits?
I'll have to second that. I'm sure plenty of Muslims died in the tragedy as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus, Athiests, or whatever. Muslims didn't bring down the WTC, extremist terrorists did. There's a difference.Extremist terrorists who were also Muslims, and who claimed that Islam had something to do with their reasons, brought down the WTC.
So about the group of Muslims that want to build a mosque next to Ground Zero - are you ****ing kidding me? Stop them before they make a mockery out of 9/11. Want to argue political correctness? It's politically incorrect for a Muslim to try and build a mosque near Ground Zero anyway so it should not be politically incorrect from stopping it from taking place. Obama is a vag for condoning it.
Thoughts?
Well, were there extremist Christains blowing up the Twin Towers?
Voltaire and Nietzsche...
Incidentally, neither of them ever had anything positive to say about humanity.
grim, i get the feeling you mean the exact opposite of what you say here ;)
Do you mean that you think my post is a joke/troll? No, I actually do feel that a mosque should not be built near Ground Zero.
Nah, they're too busy putting pipebombs in Irish schoolbusses.
Incidentally, what do you make of this? would be interested to hear your reactions to it.
what obama got wrong about the mosque (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/?cid=hp:mostpopular2)
Uh... why? First of all, I don't particularly enjoy debating with people who insult me right off the bat.
Secondly, everything that I had to say was in my post. Muslim terrorists were behind 9/11 and allowing them to build a mosque next to Ground Zero because we're too scared to stand against the "political correctness" machine is making a mockery out of the victims.
dude, entering a religion thread, stating a controversial point, and then asking for "thoughts" as you did, then you should expect a variety of responses, ya? Seemed like you wanted a debate.
great - konrad and itln and lanx responded quite a bit - but you didnt respond back or enlarge your argument. So makes it seem like you didnt really mean what you said in your post.
Again, my irritation is going to be mistaken for some sort of sensitivity as it is obvious I burst into tears every time somebody calls me an idiot on the internet, right? I just find it irritating that I can't post without having some lame insult sent my way. You call me the most sensitive member of Geekhack but the fact is Geekhack is the only forum where I get attacked ad hominem on a daily basis. I'm telling you, it's the assburgers or something but hardly anybody knows what the word "debate" means here. From where I come from, a debate is a non-insulting academic discussion. He who insults first loses first.
I wanted a debate, not to be childishly called a loser. Read Konrad's post, he seems to have a grasp on maturity.
dude, one person (mw, which surpises no one by now, ya?) called you that; while like 5 others engaged your point*. yet that was enough to drive you from the room? And you wonder why i call you the most sensitive member of gh?**
*ripster of course, merely posted a funny pic and that was that ;)
**(itln, this is the second time i'm setting this up for you).
dude, one person (mw, which surpises no one by now, ya?) called you that
Well, the guy was a jerk to me (Posted many rude things directed towards me within the past two weeks), so I called him a jerk. Kind of blunt, but I don't see much really wrong with it.
incidentally grimmy, in case its not obvious, I agree with you and quadibloc.
As do a majority of new yorkers (a pretty leftist town), and 62% of democrats.
To suggest (as some have above) that only republicans are against the mosque is to be, well, wrong.
The ****Cat Lounge near Ground Zero is the place to worship.Ah, yes. There we are. Clearly, New York City will have to expropriate that facility too, if it were to declare a... penumbral zone around the WTC site where any sort of potentially questionable or controversial construction is permitted.
People who are "against" the Burlington Mosque Factory are acting like bigots. Yeah, there are bigots who are Democrats too. People act like it's Big Al Qaeda's Mosque and Beheadarium. It's a church.
I thought this was funny.
http://twitter.com/jasonmustian/status/21337496786
who cares what it says about them, it's what it says about us.
we're america, practice your zombie worshipping ways and scare ppl into censoring allah if you want, you can do it here.
if this is about who wins and who loses it'll be a never ending battle b/c the US can look like it won b/c it did not give in to denying the constitution, and it can look like the US lost b/c there is a monument to terrorism. Or if the US denied them then the terrorists can go "see america isn't so free when push comes to shove" and the US can say "fck off ground zero terrorists, sorta ppl"
The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.
According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."
Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.
"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.
"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."
Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.
Abdul Rauf continued: "Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws." He added:
New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad ... so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]
The foundation of the Shari'ah is wisdom and the safeguarding of people's interests in this world and the next. In its entirety it is justice, mercy, and wisdom [!]. Every rule that transcends justice to tyranny, mercy to its opposite, the good to the evil, and wisdom to triviality does not belong to the Shari'ah although it might have been introduced therein by implication. The Shari'ah is God's justice and mercy among His people [!]. Life, nutrition, medicine, light, recuperation, and virtue are made possible by it. Every good that exists is derived from it, and every deficiency in being results from its loss and dissipation....For the Shari'ah, which God entrusted His Prophet to transmit, is the pillar of the world and the key to success and happiness in this world and the next."
Polls are pretty irrelevant, i mean they sampled what, 100 nyer's walking down main st?
Or if the US denied them then the terrorists can go "see america isn't so free when push comes to shove"
again, no one is "denying the constitution", (that claim is wonderfully dramatic except that its a non issue here, since no one, not even the organziers of the mass protests, is denying that they have the constitutional right), but if the imam genuinely believes in dialogue, thats not where the mosque goes.
you're right about 'what does it say about us'.
What does it say about us, that we let an imam who wont condemn hamas and says openly (on 60 minutes, no less) that 9/11 was america's fault, build a mosque 600 feet from ground zero?
but hey, maybe you feel the same way about hamas, which might explain our different take on the significances of such things. I wonder tho, what does it say about us? or about you?
and we're the bigots?
Oh yea, btw, he believes in sharia law.
what does it say about us? you're right. yea, we should embrace the kkk too. and the tea partiers. anyone who's against those two groups must be a "bigot" too. After all, what does it say about us if we dont embrace them? We'd be discriminating!
because, yea, you're right, we couldnt find any real muslim moderates to build truly open-minded mosques in such a sensitive location? I guess thats what you think then. Wow, you have a pretty low opinion of moderate islam (and we're the bigots?), but hey, if thats what you believe, then thats one reason we differ I guess.
quote from his book:
yea, sharia is just personal law, thats all. nothing to see here. Like keeping kosher. no biggie.
oh yea, he's a prominent supporter of the biggest backer of the flotillas against israel.
yea, israel, who needs 'em.
it was a quinnipiac poll, actually. I mean they're just a professional organization that does polls for a living, thats all. Oh and a bunch of other institutes and news organizations comissioned polls too, but you know, whatever.
like you said, who cares what they say?
wow, you so brilliantly convinced me that american democracy is the same as islamic terrorism!
I wonder though, in all seriousness: who is more hurtful to islam?
1. Those who believe that all muslims are terrorists?
2. Or those who believe no muslims are terrorists?
My answer: while both are wrong, the latter are far more hurtful to islam and muslims. Why? because they deny moderate muslims the opportunity to have an internal debate with their own radicals (who 'dont exist' supposedly), and they deny the rest of the world the opportunity to engage with radical islam (which 'doesnt exist', supposedly).
We -- we leftists -- dont do this to any other religion. There is no other religion on earth that we so instinctively and thoughtlessly protect, at a time when islam is so obviously in a complete and total crisis.
We dont do this to christianity. We never declare that all christians are good.
We dont do this to hinduism. We dont do this to judaism.
Moderate muslims who try to engage their own radicals -- we call them seditious, traitors, stooges of western imperialism.
And non-muslims who try to engage the radicals -- we call them 'bigots'.
We do this incredibly hurtful thing to muslims. We, leftists. We're the moderate muslim's worst nightmare.
I said it was funny, not poignant.
We -- we leftists -- dont do this to any other religion. There is no other religion on earth that we so instinctively and thoughtlessly protect, at a time when islam is so obviously in a complete and total crisis.
We dont do this to christianity. We never declare that all christians are good.
We dont do this to hinduism. We dont do this to judaism.
Moderate muslims who try to engage their own radicals -- we call them seditious, traitors, stooges of western imperialism.
And non-muslims who try to engage the radicals -- we call them 'bigots'.
We do this incredibly hurtful thing to muslims. We, leftists. We're the moderate muslim's worst nightmare.
I just think it is silly that people are so up in arms about a church.I'll tell you what they're really up in arms over.
I'm not in the mood to read eleven pages of posts, so could someone that has already done so summarize everything? Am I correct in assuming that a sizable percentage of Geekhackers are non-religious/atheist?
There isn't a set precedent for which set of "rules" takes priority here in our system. Is that what you mean?I'm sure that if somebody came out of a cave in America today, and told people that an angel spoke to him, and organized a band of followers who committed robberies, the rule against violent aggression would indeed take precedence over the rule in favor of freedom of religion.
Welly gets a bit butthurt when people point out that America isn't all that great.
I don't give a free pass to any religion. Religion, especially Christianity and Islam, have just as much potential for harm/evil as good.
My last point on the Ground Zero thing is that you can either allow everybody or allow no one to erect a place a worship, but you can't pick and choose
especially in a country that was founded on religious freedom.
I also agree with Ripster that blocking the building of a Muslim anything only validates the terrorists' motive
, and it alienates one of the largest-growing demographics in the nation.
I'd like to propose something here. I propose that thought 1 and thought 2 contradict each other directly.
Religions have as much potential for harm/evil as good.
Then why allow "all" to build or "none" to build?
To say "Religions have as much potential for harm/evil as good" implies that what is needed is the ability, then, to discriminate (in the sense of applying one's judgement, reason, decision making apparatus) to filter out good versions of religions from bad versions of religions.
If one discriminates (in this positive normal sense), then one cannot "willy nilly" reject all or accept all, then, can they?
intellectual discrimination: means you must in fact pick and choose. And this nation does all the time. We storm cults in waco texas dont we? discrimination! (in both senses).
so, basic contradiction in your approach to the mosque problem, I think. You call for us to discriminate, and then rail against the discrimination.
Nobody stopped Koresh from starting the cult in Waco. Why? Religious freedom. When bad things happened, that's when the invasion occurred. .
konrad, with all due respect, you really need to study world history a bit more. Evil didnt originate with america, i'm sorry to inform you.
I'd appreciate your perspective more if you had any.
from Dictionary.com
I believe American foreign policy is evil. I define "evil" not as some sort of demonic eternal damnation, but as acts where stupidity, belligerence, greed, and cruelty permit the suffering and subjugation of "good" people.
but this argument is a canard in the current situation. Because no one, not even the organizers of the protests, is disputing the right to build a mosque there. Its legal. Everyone who matters has acceded to that point. So what you're arguing here is a non-issue.
Whats being debated in new york (and around the nation) is the advisability of building it there: specifically,
1) an imam who wont repudiate hamas,
2) who believes in sharia law
3) who is on record saying most of the funding will come from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) building a 100 million dollar center, including a mosque,
5) 600 feet from ground zero.
Whats being debated in new york (and around the nation) is the advisability of building it there: specifically,
1) an imam who wont repudiate hamas,
2) who believes in sharia law
3) who is on record saying most of the funding will come from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) building a 100 million dollar center, including a mosque,
5) 600 feet from ground zero.
I think we should show people the same respect and tolerance that they show us. Building a mosque near GZ is provocative, insensitive and foolish. If they have the right to do this then fine. But they forfeit any right to complain if they are the subject of provocative, insensitive treatment as a result.
I don't know too much about the plans, but if it is to be a conventional building (by U.S. standards) that just happens to contain a mosque area, then it should be easy enough to just ignore it.
St Pauls Chapel (built in 1766). TEAR IT DOWN!!!! George Washington prayed there BTW. Probably wondering what all the fuss is about.Show Image(http://www.nybeyondsight.org/img/portspics/st-paul.jpg)
you have to care about what it does to victims families who have to bear the cruel irony.
No i actually believe you are adding to this, what the real debate about is perception. perception that there is now a ground zero mosque, (stating that there will be a mosque built on ground zero).
perception that america thinks
all terrorists=muslims
all muslims=terrorists
all terrorists need a base of operations
since all muslims=terrorists
a mosque=a base of operations
A base of operations near ground zero would be the same as the US building an embassy in another nation, it is untouchable, just like in the movies where a US person in a foreign land is running from a foreign power, if they make it to the embassy w/ US soldiers waiting, they cannot be touched.
It is a perception issue, i don't think most ppl give 2 ****s about this iman whatever, or these hamas ppl.
It's the perception that the US is allowed a terrorist organization cloaked in the veil of being muslim/islam to build a base of operations right at the heart of ground zero.
sam harris (who i admire quite a bit) said it right when someone said "all or none". It matters that its a mosque because it was in the name of islam that the towers went down. And there is a history of islamic mosques over 'victory sites' in muslim history, and that symbolism wont be lost on muslims and particularly the extremists. Most americans dont know this history because america has largely escaped (until now) muslim imperialist wrath. But ask europeans, middle easterners, and asians, who know their history, about victory mosques. They'll tell you what it means.
hamas endorses 9/11 mosque (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5693236/hamas_endorses_911_mosque.html?cat=9)
Even if you dont care how it will inspire extremists (and put up by an imam who wont condemn the extremists), you have to care about what it does to victims families who have to bear the cruel irony. Like the skokie march. That includes moderate muslims who have come out against the mosque by the way, precisely on the question of gross insensitivity.
I agree with sam harris when he says, the ultimate irony here is that, the kinds of muslims who we'd want to have a mosque there - are the kind who are in fact considerate enough to realize that dividing the community and refusing to condemn violence is not the way to start a 'dialogue'
I wouldn't call a mosque right near Ground Zero some nefarious headquarters. Its intent is to be a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 and their families. That's why I got a problem with it.
The distinction between extremism and 'moderate' Islam is something I find rather amusing. Even if you leave aside the anti-American terrorism, Islam is a particularly nasty and extreme religion within of itself. So, obviously there are some Muslims that don't buy into the sort of violence, misogyny, racism that Muslims are meant to play along with, and these are the "good guys". But then you're expecting people to pick and mix elements of their religion which they're not meant to, which comes across as "It's ok to be a Muslim, as long as you are a bad one". Which is sort of tragically ironic if you think about it all.
I don't; mainly because there is no irony here from a purely religious aspect. What the extremists do might be in the name of a religion, but that's to keep the troops in line and inspired. These people have no real interest in the actual religion, they just want money and power; pure politics. Nobody wanted to stop people from putting up churches when when the KKK lynched black in the south even though it's a "Christian" organization. It's the same thing here. You can't condemn a whole group of people based on what a few do.
I'll tell you what they're really up in arms over.
On the one hand, they think that their feelings should be respected, and that something which appears to lend itself to interpretation as a symbol of victory by the terrorists should not be built in the vicinity of the WTC.
On the other hand, they find it strange that the First Amendment means that their feelings in this regard must be ignored, and yet despite the First Amendment, we should be "responsible" and not show any disrespect...
....
the issue I was trying to express is this: if freedom of religion means we must tolerate what appears to be disrespect for the victims of 9/11, but freedom of speech must be exercised "responsibly", and we may not object too loudly at attempts to force us at gunpoint to be polite and respectful to a rapist... then that means we're accepting a status of being everyone else's doormat.
Giving respect when it is not deserved, but asking for none in return.
America is not so weak that Americans feel they have to put up with that.
but i'm not condmening a 'whole group of people'; i'm condemning imam rauf quite specifically.
To wit:
1) wont repudiate hamas
2) thinks 9/11 was americas fault
3) fund raising from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) knows the signifance of the 9/11 location and what happend there
5) and so obviously doesnt give a hoot about dialogue.
you can keep making this out to be a christian-muslim war, but its not. Its really like the skokie march, and my heart goes out to those holocaust survivors who had to endure it. Its horrible and i think you're heartless if you dont feel it.
I also like the way quadibloc put it:
How is that not a big slap in the face to 9/11 victims?
Simple solution. Local ordinance. Declare WTC site and 2 block perimeter a national monument or historical site. Do not allow mosques, controversial establishments, etc. That way, it's up to the people, not politicians. I've seen communities use similar tactics to prevent strip joints too close to elementary schools and to prevent WalMart from setting up shop in a town. There's likely some technicality that would stand in the way of the local ordinance and if the people did pass something, Obama would just sue NYC and force a mosque down their throats.
I don't; mainly because there is no irony here from a purely religious aspect.
I liked Imam Rauf better when he was called Cat Stevens.
But why else would people be building a mosque near Ground Zero? It's a mockery of 9/11 and we shouldn't tolerate it at all. I wouldn't mind a mosque someplace else in New York City, but why does it have to be right there?
I'm thinking about this from a purely convienient area, lots of muslims work downtown and they want a mosque closer to them so they can take a quick break/on their lunchbreak go out pray come back and work. For reference i was able to walk to Chinatown have dim-sum and come back within the hour.
I liked Imam Rauf better when he was called Cat Stevens.Huh? He changed his name again from Yusuf Islam?
ya but according to NYT there are already several mosques in downtown area... even this one wouldnt have raised eyebrows (despite the imam's history) but for imam rauf's insistence on that particular location. Governor patterson has already offered to relocate it with state money, and so far imam rauf has refused.
... the ultimate irony here is that, the kinds of muslims who we'd want to have a mosque there - are the kind who are in fact considerate enough to realize that dividing the community and refusing to condemn violence is not the way to start a 'dialogue'
Not trying to warp your message out of context, partly because I happen to agree with what you're saying.
But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard. Is it so strange that "they" would discriminate against "us" in similar terms? Perhaps the best way to achieve a "dialogue" would be to allow the "acceptable" muslims make their own decisions about the site of their temple regardless of our opinions on the matter?
But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard.
Not trying to warp your message out of context, partly because I happen to agree with what you're saying.
But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard. Is it so strange that "they" would discriminate against "us" in similar terms? Perhaps the best way to achieve a "dialogue" would be to allow the "acceptable" muslims make their own decisions about the site of their temple regardless of our opinions on the matter?
Damn all those nations who dare to defy allowing foreign armies occupy their cities or move freely within their borders. What right do they have to resist the proper order of things?The ordinary people of Afghanistan and Iraq are not defying U.S. troops. Instead, they're being murdered by the terrorists who are doing that.
Ah, well I remember a time when the United Nations, not the United States, policed such international crises. Seems to me that there weren't as many terrorists back then, in fact the few who were around mostly happened to be US citizens.
Why on earth would anybody intelligent from another country let a megalomaniacal idiot like Bush (who was quite unpopular in his own country) dictate the way their nation should work? Assuming they're not held at gunpoint while deciding, of course.
Is that "and lastly" part a promise?
EDIT: Whoops, forgot the smiley. :smiley:
EDIT2: :smile:
I don't like inbred aristocracy
I wasn't indoctrinated in US history/patriotism as a child, so even though I've seen all the same Kennedy documentaries and footage
LOL - I don't think Newt has been to Hawaii or watched this episode of LOST. The Byodo-In Buddhist Temple in Oahu.
Why on earth would anybody intelligent from another country let a megalomaniacal idiot like Bush (who was quite unpopular in his own country) dictate the way their nation should work? Assuming they're not held at gunpoint while deciding, of course.
1) Do you think this is a religious conflict, specifically, an essentially Christian-vs-Islam one? I do
, though I think American media/government are marketing it in a way that denies this truth
while they simultaneously encourage it on a nearly subconscious level.
It seems pretty obvious where Jihad fanatics (and US military commanders) stand on these issues, and though I think it may be exaggerated, I think most moderate muslims outside of America bear no love for America but are largely uninterested in the prospect of war with America.
2) Do you think this is a national conflict, specifically, is this America-vs-Middle East? I do.
I see America has built up the worlds largest standing military force, with superior technology to boot, and like a big game of RISK they've played their cards and are now stomping around the middle east. It's much like Vietnam in the sense that Americans "don't belong" there, are viewed as invaders, and are actively opposed by the very populations of people they're attempting to liberate from tyrrany and oppression.
3) Do you think this is a racist conflict? I do.
4) Do you think the hatred is rational? I do
it's already self-evident (to me) that muslims are being grouped with rapists, nazis, and racists
That was built on the Honolulu internment camp site.
It's Ripster with a capital R. Even MW's sig gets it right.
It's Ripster with a capital R. Even MW's sig gets it right.
That was built on the Honolulu internment camp site.
How disrespectful! Newt should look into that.Show Image(http://www.tofugu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/hawaii_honolulu_internment_camp2.jpg)
Luckily I don't think the US Government would do that to Muslims. Or ban their places of worship. That would violate our principles of freedom.
I cannot comprehend the conversational exchange going on between wellington and konrad, can someone give me the tldr version? I think it is just way beyond my scope.
1) Do you think this is a religious conflict, specifically, an essentially Christian-vs-Islam one? I do
I think most moderate muslims outside of America bear no love for America but are largely uninterested in the prospect of war with America.
2) Do you think this is a national conflict, specifically, is this America-vs-Middle East? I do.
Back to Newt there is a LegoLand near Hitler's Fuhrerbunker. I just looked it up on Google Earth...
Tarot card:
(side A) - picture of a sheep, "The Believer - one who blindly accepts ideas"
(side B) - picture of a dragon, "The Cynic - one who blindly rejects ideas"/QUOTE]I have some issues with what some of Dawkins has to say.
While I accept some of the things religions teach - that consciousness is a real phenomenon, and so other people are real, important, and valuable in a way that things are not, and how we treat them matters; and that right and wrong are real concepts: abstract, but no less valid than mathematics - I will assume, without strong evidence to the contrary, that a claim that God or an angel spoke to someone and gave him rules we must obey is false, and just an attempt to hoodwink and manipulate people.
I don't think that's blind rejection, just sound common sense.
... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive; ... (Quran 5:32)
He commanded Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. This was done after providing both the idolaters and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) sufficient time to understand whether Muhammad (pbuh) was a real messenger of God and the message he brought forward was actually the message from God.
This is God's law specific to messengers as I have explained above. Since a messenger of God is not living with us anymore, and we do not know that which is in the hearts of people, we cannot call them 'infidels' and commit such acts.
while I support (and have infamously already supported) MW's right to post just about as freely as he pleases*, I just want to say for the record that I disagree with his political views probably pretty much across the board ;)
*[btw Konrad, it was "evil american propaganda" (!) that gave me those values ;)]
I am merely pointing out that the Quran DOES contain non-tolerant, non-peaceful ORDERS to kill non-believers, allegedly from God via Muhammad. Sorry if you consider this to be an inability to think. It seems to me to be a quite pertinent fact when forming an opinion of the religion. And I never said the Christians and their Bible are any better.
In any event, pulling random passages out of a holy book doesn't justify any particular message; any decent priest or lawyer will know that the books will condone any message you want if you read through them long enough.This is true. However, Christians are not currently burning heretics at the stake. Jews are not currently invading towns of non-Jews, killing all the men and their wives, and taking the virgin women for wives for themselves.
The problem isn't whether Islam is somehow a "worse religion" than Christianity or Judaism. The problem is that, at the present time, the Muslim world has demonstrated that significant parts of it engage in various forms of aggressive violence.
.
Konrad: Hi!
P.S. Konrad - you forgot Welly calling you a Baptist. I won't mention who he meant.
It appears that we are unable to maintain any meaningful "dialog" on this topic.
I will continue to think whatever I like
Archbishop Dolan invoked the example of Pope John Paul II, who in 1993 ordered Catholic nuns to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.
“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”
Archbishop Dolan is the most prominent New York religious leader to weigh in on the Islamic center
...
“Those who wonder about the wisdom of the situation of the mosque, near such a wounded site, ask what I think are some legitimate questions that I think deserve attention,” he said
...
The center continues to divide Americans. A poll released Wednesday by Siena College showed that 63 percent of New York State voters surveyed opposed the project
I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district.
...
I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.
...
What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.
"At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district."
what does this mean? Muslims don't work in the commercial area? BS
So your saying this guy is saying mosques don't belong in commercial areas, but the churches that are in commercial areas (and the 1 room mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero) get a grandfather rule of they were there first so it's ok.
Thats already an argument of not making sense.
so by his assumption it'd be ok to open a mosque by the south st seaport, cuz while i don't know if that is a residential area or not, i know there are a lot of high rise apt's there and i've been in 2 of em cuz of friends, and thats like 8 blocks away.
So your saying this guy is saying mosques don't belong in commercial areas, but the churches that are in commercial areas (and the 1 room mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero) get a grandfather rule of they were there first so it's ok.The problem with the mosque is that it could be considered a monument to a victory for Islam over the infidels - down came the WTC, up came a mosque in its place. This certainly can't be said of a Christian church that had been in the area before September 11, 2001.
Thats already an argument of not making sense.
Simple solution: prevent the building of any new religious gathering points (any religion at all).
That is not, before I'm accused of it, the same as saying "outlaw religion" (which is not what I'm trying to say).
The problem with the mosque is that it could be considered a monument to a victory for Islam over the infidels - down came the WTC, up came a mosque in its place. This certainly can't be said of a Christian church that had been in the area before September 11, 2001.
The problem with the mosque is that it could be considered a monument to a victory for Islam over the infidels - down came the WTC, up came a mosque in its place. This certainly can't be said of a Christian church that had been in the area before September 11, 2001.
exactly what the tea partiers and far right says.
[Konrad] is far more conservative than you want to admit.
How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?
If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance. Would you care to elaborate?
Consider the parasite that causes River Blindness ... If that organism was the result of intelligent design, God must have a very strange sense of humour...
I thought you were going to continue letting Welly talk to himself?
the alternative solution: allow any new religious gathering point so long as those individuals and religions are appropriate for a national memorial cemetary (which the 9/11 site essentially is). That includes christian or muslim or etc gathering places so long as the particular sect/funding/imam/priest isnt someone "creepy" (in christopher hitchens words) who wont repudiate extremists. Because that would be inappropriate near a national memorial cemetary. In the same way they could disallow the KKK from building there, or hindu militants from building there, and etc, but allow ordinary (non-violence-seeking) churches, mosques, temples, or shrines.I really think this mosque issue is simplier than this.
Because the problem isnt that the gathering place is muslim; the problem is imam rauf wont repudiate hamas, wont confront directly the kinds of religious imperial ambitions and hate that caused 9/11, wont reject iranian and saudi funding, etc. Thats what makes his mosque a mockery of 9/11, not the fact that he's muslim. And i cant accept that we couldnt find a genuine moderate imam - who has an actual track record of rejecting extremism - who i'd be happy to see him have a mosque there, and would send the right message to everyone, would directly send a message to the terrorists too, and be entirely appropriate for a national memorial cemetary.
Until we stop thinking of this as 'islam vs chty', and instead start seeing it for what it is -- a values fight, regardless of religion -- all we're doing is throwing logs on the fire (like konrad). Imam rauf isnt appropriate because of his own track record, because of things he has said and things he promises he's going to do. Not because he's 'muslim'.
If we can differentiate so readily between the values of christian pacifists and christian rationalists versus the values of christian imperialists and exclusivists, approve of the former and mock and decry the latter, we should be able to do the exact same thing for islam too.
I've said it before: Science explains that the purpose of humans in the universe is incidental while religion explains that humans are central.That does sum up a major difference between science and religion very succinctly.
I really think this mosque issue is simplier than this.
...
While the ppl against it are incorrectly associating
muslim=islam=terrorist=wtc destruction
=a monument to victory for the other side.
I'd argue if anyone is stereotyping, its you, by refusing to see muslims as individuals who might have their own minds, including feelings about the inappropriateness of the site location. Like konrad you keep trying to make this about "us" against "muslims" as if either group is homogenous. And that involves massive stereotyping. Shame on you.
It also plays directly into the hands of the extremists who want nothing more than to paint this as "world against (allegedly homogenous) islam". Congrats for not helping the situation at all. :)
It's tragic how, in the 'land of the free', being a god-fearing Christian is a job requirement for leadership.
Now, surely if being a Muslim is all cool, then surely the possibility that Obama is a Muslim would not be a bad thing, and therefore not damage his reputation?
you just seem to want to attack and provoke, idk why, but i guess thats your modus operandi.
I was just presenting a view that i observed just like you from watching media/news/articles. I won't be "defending" myself tho but i guess i'll add a smiley face so that it enforces the ability to seem non combative. :)
Well, were there extremist Christains blowing up the Twin Towers?
Why should it matter if it's not a religious war?
no worries dude, just having fun.
It's tragic how, in the 'land of the free', being a god-fearing Christian is a job requirement for leadership.Being some sort of a Christian does seem to be a requirement for the Presidency, given that most Americans are Christians.
Being some sort of a Christian does seem to be a requirement for the Presidency, given that most Americans are Christians.
Certainly one can be a God-fearing Christian and become President. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan come to mind. But I would still not characterize that as a requirement. Mike Huckabee didn't become President, and Sarah Palin didn't even become Vice-President.
Being some sort of a Christian does seem to be a requirement for the Presidency, given that most Americans are Christians.
Certainly one can be a God-fearing Christian and become President. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan come to mind. But I would still not characterize that as a requirement. Mike Huckabee didn't become President, and Sarah Palin didn't even become Vice-President.
[speaking to no one in particular...] ... *coughkonradcough* ... no, dear war-mongering konrad, its not a religious war.You actually made me laugh. :fencing:
You actually made me laugh. :fencing:
But sorry, I'm not going for the bait again. I'll stick with my Voltaire: no matter how much I might happen to not agree with your ****ing idiotic opinions I'll still champion your right to voice them.
You want to find religious war? Hamas has declared it, go read their manifesto.
but i have a feeling you wont utter a peep against them.
lol, well, I suppose I could squeeze a few special people on the list before Voltaire ...
Seriously man, give it up. You were right, I was wrong, I love you too.
The point I'm making here is that religion seems to be a huge issue in US politics whereas in Europe it was rather irrelevant... Even during the height of "Catholic Ireland" we had a few Protestant presidents, including our very first one.
I feel like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. I have had the power to close this thread the whole time.
“If they want to put it 10 blocks away, that’s fine,” Mr. Akhtar said. “I believe in compromise, too.”
...
Malik Nadeem Abid, an insurance agent whose storefront window on Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn framed a steady stream of men walking to pray at the mosque next door, said he was “not a big fan” of the decision by the Cordoba Initiative, a Muslim group that promotes interfaith cooperation, to build the center near ground zero.
“It was not a politically smart move, from my perspective,” said Mr. Abid, 45. “No one wants a center in downtown Manhattan that stands as a permanent fixture of this terrible tension.”
Yet the decision has been made, he said, “and we can’t let the loudest voices dictate what happens.” Still, he added, if the center were built 5 or 10 blocks away, as some people have proposed, “I don’t think it would matter very much.”
That kind of ambivalence over the downtown project, some said, was partly the point: Muslims in America embody the same diversity as everyone else.
I wonder why churches would purchase insurance against fire, flood, lightning and other "acts of God". Seems like a conflict of interest. Or at least a waste of money.It is written in Holy Scripture that the rain falls on the just and on the unjust.
Religion is perfectly free to accept and promote religious doctrine. But religion has no right to impose that doctrine on science with the expectation that science will accept doctrines that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Religion must accept that science will be compelled to confirm or refute the assumed validity of the doctrine.
Science deals with observable phenomena that can be reproduced or verified. But science has no authority to categorically decree that only observed phenomena exist while unobserved phenomena do not. Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.
Konrad munches on his cereal in third person. Fruit loops, wheeeeee.
that was basically kant's position. it implicitly supports the separation of church-n-state, creating a truce that has held now for 200 years in the west. And relegates religion to the personal sphere (preventing theocracy) and relegates science to the public sphere (preventing marxist/atheist dictatorship). This is how the west avoided (internally anyway) the extremes of (right wing) theocracies and (left wing) dictatorships that have roiled the rest of the world. I'm all for it too, and have no quarrel with you on that one.
didn't wacko's in the south get legislation passed through to teach evolution and creationism in public schools?
I think it was this guy.
Isn't he a Muslim? He LOOKS Muslim.Show Image(http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/bobby-jindal.jpg)
Sure looks Muslim.
Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.People can apply rational thought to religion.
didn't wacko's in the south get legislation passed through to teach evolution and creationism in public schools?
thats in kansas. Yup, as with any large complex society, we have our share of theocrats who try constantly to usurp government ...The strategy of teaching Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) as a valid theory was very clever. After all, Natural Selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) (popularly misnomered as Evolution) is also a theory. ID is argued to merely be another theory which is no more or less legitimate than NS. No matter how obvious and fundamental either theory might appear (to most people), they are each ultimately impossible to categorically prove or disprove by any scientific test.
... (taking over a school board does not a revolution make) ...I agree with you here welly (surprise), and I won't use your quote to undermine your argument.
wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_jindal)
People can apply rational thought to religion.People can also apply religious doctrine to their science.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was an event alleged to have been observed; as such, it's a legitimate historical question as to whether or not it happened.A miracle that has evidently not been explained away as easily as most with Hume's "principle of minimum astonishment".
Science can also talk about what people's motivations are for thinking there is likely to be an afterlifeThis strikes me as being psychology (said to be a valid scientific discipline by many). I see the emphasis as being on the thought process itself.
Cultures cannot exist without propaganda.
[Jindal] converted to Christianity while in high school. During his first year at Brown University, he was baptized according to the Roman Catholic rite. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.
But I wouldn't dismiss the "threat" so casually.
Science deals with observable phenomena that can be reproduced or verified. But science has no authority to categorically decree that only observed phenomena exist while unobserved phenomena do not. Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.
ripper, are you having a particularly slow night?
or just itching for some trolling?I think the idea is that if Obama is a Muslim, then Bobby Jindal is a Hindu.
Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant? Regardless of whether this religion is proferred for public appearance, or secretly practiced in private, or even (falsely?) assumed by public consensus?
Now, just using examples here - why should Christianity be reserved only for "white" people while "un-white" people automatically identify with non-Christian religions? Why should a Hindu politician be more acceptable than a Muslim one, and why should he be criticized for existing in a traditionally Christian political arena? Would claiming to be a Pagan, Taoist, Wiccan, or Sith Lord make him more palettable for the masses?
I thought someone *coughbeakercough* said this wasn't a religious war, nor a racist one?
Sith Lord. I'd vote for that.Show Image(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_O51Y5rvfCxM/Sb-WXJKUFbI/AAAAAAAAAow/WRRR6cwsV2o/s400/Pope_or_Sith_Lord.jpg)
Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant? Regardless of whether this religion is proferred for public appearance, or secretly practiced in private, or even (falsely?) assumed by public consensus?I don't think that Sarah Palin's "religion" is irrelevant, or, for that matter, that Mike Huckabee's "religion" is irrelevant.
Now, maybe someday an Ahmadiyya Muslim, or even an Ismaili, might be elected President. I suspect however, that this, like the election of a Jewish President, will have to wait until the Middle East situation gets a little less explosive.
Just curious ... have there ever been any prominent, popular politicians in the states who proudly declare themselves as atheists, or even agnostics? I'll admit my ignorance (and general disinterest) in the background of many US political figures, but at a glance it seems that declaring some sort of pro-Christian affiliation is somewhat mandatory when seeking a political career. No doubt there are many exceptions. Are any of them proud atheists, willing to (politely, tolerantly) issue public commentary which dares to insult religious (including Christian) believers?
but at a glance it seems that declaring some sort of pro-Christian affiliation is somewhat mandatory when seeking a political career. No doubt there are many exceptions.There are some prominent Jewish politicians in the U.S., but, yes, you are correct that in general, very few American politicians are openly non-believers.
Oh, and I think Sarah Palin is a freemason:
I think the idea is that if Obama is a Muslim, then Bobby Jindal is a Hindu.
Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant?
What does that say to a group of believers when a "natural" event levels their sacred building into a pile of ashes and ruin?I noticed a news item, only a month or so, about a giant statue of Jesus set up by one Christian denomination being struck by lightning.
I suspect the problem is that I'm mistakenly attempting to argue with logical value assignments.This could well be causing problems, because I am not familiar with that mode of argument.
... police were ticketing drivers who stopped or slowed down on the highway in the area to gawk at or photograph the ruins. I was wondering if that was merely to keep traffic flowing, or if there was some attitude ...Well, that's just not fair. Traffic jammed for miles, a 2-hour crawl, all because somebody had discarded a stupid fridge on the side of the highway. Omg, a fridge, everybody slow down and gawk! Wtf? Never seen a fridge before? No police in sight, of course.
... I ask the Islamic world to mend its ways to prevent a catastrophic confrontation that *it will lose*.Not to seem callous. But if that's already the inescapably foregone conclusion then why wait to exterminate them?
All religions suck. Organized religions suck more. Some of those suck further. Some groups and individuals within those suck completely ... The sooner we get rid of these ancient relics and just be humans, the betterSomething I've said before ... natural selection has bred religion into the human species. In ancient societies you either accepted religion (one way or another) or you were killed or damaged or socially outcast and simply unable to procreate. Now we won't be rid of the limits "designed" into the human species until natural competition for resources gives a decisive edge to neo-sapiens over dogma-sapiens.
Doesn't help that rational people breed much slower than non-rational ones :pAn unfortunate weakness in a democratic system that campaigning politicians are well aware of. Stupid inbreeders will always have more voices than educated sophonts.
The fact that they haven't already been nuked suggests that there's some merit - some hope - in attempting to repair relations. Or the oil wells are too precious to risk damaging.It means that even G. W. Bush is a more forgiving person, and a less ruthless person, than I am, I suppose.
lol america will never nuke first.
("I have no beliefs, but you can believe what you want, just don't get pushy or demanding").
So we'll just add naive wishywashy moral idealist/cynic along with insultingly inflexible "black-and-white" evangelistic imperialist to the list of my previously asserted faults (being a warmongering illiterate uninformed/ignorant intolerant hater, hypocritical Sharia-supporting baptist, moron, tyrannical fascist extremist, and possible enemy of the state).
At least I haven't been accused of ugly.
I'm obviously a truly despicable individual whose rabid opinions range from merely offensive to blatantly dangerous, eh?
You want to find religious war? Hamas has declared it, go read their manifesto.
but i have a feeling you wont utter a peep against them.
The stance of your arguments has been largely based on rhetoric, welly. (Inflammatory and confrontational rhetoric, mostly.)
It is natural and expected that we disagree. It must pain you to know that when I do get to vote in matters of American policy my voice will carry exactly the same weight as yours.
I recall Jefferson is also noted for running a "nail factory" based on the labour of his two badly mistreated black slaves, absolutely offensive (and illegal) in today's more enlightened American society but not particularly outrageous by the standards of the American society he lived in.
Using that example as an (imperfect) comparison between social standards of his age and ours, I'm not entirely convinced that his moderate deism would fly today (ie, his being elected as president today seems unlikely to me because of today's expectations in political-religious affiliation).
Um ...Quote from:At least I haven't been accused of ugly.show me a pic and i'll remedy that :)
Need I say more?We are honored to learn that Uma Thurman is a fellow Geekhacker... posting here under the name "Konrad".
so konrad, are you a fan of tarantino? i cant stand him ... so even in our taste in movies we appear to be polar opposites :)I was briefly inclined to champion my undying starry-eyed fanboy love of Tarantino for no reason other than to provoke you into another flamestorm of random apoplectic fury, Welly.
Any comments?Gee, I didn't know you were a Scientologist.
Uma Therman is NOT a sex symbol. She insisted this herself, in the late 80s Rolling Stone issue for which she posed without clothing.This would be funnier if it weren't so important, and so difficult, to get on the cover of Rolling Stone, or even just within the magazine, that the magazine's editors did not have immense power to encourage people to do what will improve the magazine's circulation.
I was briefly inclined to champion my undying starry-eyed fanboy love of Tarantino for no reason other than to provoke you into another flamestorm of random apoplectic fury, Welly.
But alas, we can essentially agree to the substance of your attack on Tarantino; I'm no great fan of him nor most of his work either. Kill Bill wasn't particularly good or inspired.
As I've suggested before, I don't personally celebrate celebrities for their own sake; their popularity, position, or authority carries little weight for me when judging the value of their efforts and accomplishments.
I discovered as a young adult that the very nature of art and artists (or "artistic" pretenders and claimants) is often inconsistent and highly subject to personal opinion.
I just don't view popular assessments as being absolutely correct in areas like art - where personal opinion (ie, entertainment and enjoyment value) is what matters most, and my thoughts (like anyone else's) about the merit of each artistic piece (or artist) are never in full concordance with the expectations of the masses. Discordian attitude I suppose, but like it or not I care little.
So whether my opinion of a particular movie agrees with anyone else's is of little concern to me unless it impacts the decision of which movie we'll watch together. I'm happily confident in declaring that you and I, Welly, will never be going out together on a movie date.
Now you're calling me an aristocratic pooh-pooh, Welly?
[Edit]
I think I'll pass on that cappaccino. Much as I could endure our lively conversations, I'm afraid our relationship would be purely physical.:fish:
Gee, I didn't know you were a Scientologist.Why the hell would anyone would buy into a "religion" cooked up by a drugged-hazed second-rate sci-fi writer is beyond me.
Why the hell would anyone would buy into a "religion" cooked up by a drugged-hazed second-rate sci-fi writer is beyond me.
I'm surprised there's hardly been any mention of eastern philosophies in this thread.
^-----
why do buddhists get cut slack? they pray and worship at the foot of by today's standards a very morbidly obese god. If there is a person to pray to, then it should be considered a fairy tale as well.
I'm surprised there's hardly been any mention of eastern philosophies in this thread.Well, Eastern philosophies seem less offensive.
Even Buddhists don't get off scot-free. Right now, the terrorist Tamil Tigers are in the news, but back in 1983, large numbers of Tamil civilians were killed in Sri Lanka because the government tried to crush a separatist movement - Sri Lanka's majority Sinhalese being Buddhist.
I see the same thing when people possess expert knowledge of the wonderful lost civilization of Atlantis ... they do genuinely want to possess knowledge, but have been somehow deluded or failed by our educational system.In a magazine aimed at skeptics, I recall reading an article about a counter-intuitive result of a survey of education and pseudo-scientific belief.
And then there's Kabbalah.
Which Kabbalah? Orthodox Judaisc Kabbalah, Golden Dawn Kabbalah, or Aleister Crowley's Kabbalah?I wasn't thinking of the Golden Dawn or Aleister Crowley... but I'm not quite sure if Madonna's Kabbalah is quite Orthodox Judaic Kabbalah or not.
I saw that (Yahoo shoves Associated Press content at me every time I log out of that particular email account). Good stuff.
But "The Grand Design" seems to step away from that, saying physics can explain things without the need for a "benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit."I find no particular reason to believe the hypothetical creator is particularly benevolent.
attained spiritual enlightenment through deliberate effort
There is that matter of paying tithes.
ok, i think stephen hawking has officially brought this thread to a close. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-god-not-n_n_703179.html)
...or has he?
Wellington,
For the former half of the thread, I thought you had some very coherent
and rational posts, but once it got close-to-home with the Ground Zero
stuff, I could no longer give you that credit.
For instance, I noticed, for the most part, you used "Hamas"
interchangeably with "wrong." That demonstrates a huge lack of perspective.
If you did your homework on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, you'd see that
whether or not the Palestinians are reacting in an ideal fashion, it's certainly
an understandable one.
you seem incredibly confident about
exactly who was involved in the events on September 11th, 2001 concerning
the World Trade Center buildings, despite warranted suspicion.
it would be arrogant to claim absolutely that the events were purely devised by "Muslim extremists" especially considering the whopping pile of evidence that suggests the contrary.No, it wouldn't be, as there is in fact no credible evidence suggesting the contrary. There are people who claim that something else happened, for example, that the Twin Towers were brought down through a controlled demolition, but these claims have been thoroughly refuted.
I hear them Jews done did it.
^-----
why do buddhists get cut slack? they pray and worship at the foot of by today's standards a very morbidly obese god. If there is a person to pray to, then it should be considered a fairy tale as well.
Actually, it is my understanding that they neither worship Buddha nor pray to him. Buddha didn't claim to be a God.
A very special Three Dimensional many experiences for the Intuitive, for the Dreamer, and for the Great Thinker. Match all symbols to form a cube where you bring together Lion and Lamb, Heaven and Earth, Rain and Sun, Yin and Yang to form A Single Perfectly Transcendant And Harmonious Whole. A Genuine Game which unfolds differently each time you play. Not a one solutions puzzle. Thus, excellent for Family Play, for in classrooms as Logic Game, for in groups to Assessing Cooperative Skills or just even for to traditional give to that Special Clever Person. Everyone plays together and we realize the common objective and symmetry.
If you are Very Young then to Simple Play you Achieve Harmony by make blocks as pleasing shapes like Great Wall, or City, or River, or Mountains. If you are Very Old then to Hard Play you think about Symmetry in Many Pleasing Shapes and Sounds to make blocks for Special Harmony.
if you seriously believe in fairies, santa clause, ghosts or god you should be put in a mental institution
Worst $2 I ever spent.
if you seriously believe in fairies, santa clause, ghosts or god you should be put in a mental institution
if you seriously believe in fairies, santa clause, ghosts or god you should be put in a mental institution
I believe in Santa Claus longer than I believed in God - something to do with my love of quantifiable results.
I believe in Santa Claus longer than I believed in God - something to do with my love of quantifiable results.
Pass it on to others, so that they too may be enlightened!
Reconcile your past in order to move to the future.
Be Kind. Rewind.
Two For One Every Wednesday.
Give twice as much as ye receive on our most sacred of days.
Every Wednesday.
Actually, it is my understanding that they neither worship Buddha nor pray to him. Buddha didn't claim to be a God.
voix this is an excellent point. Arguably buddhism (by the standards of monotheism anyway) is more a philosophy than a religion.
Ok i hate to pull out my "former buddhist member card" out but i will since all this is "i read in a book that buddhists are!!!, and all these comments are just theory" i prayed to a big fat obese buddha every morning until i was 14. Of course buddha wasn't the only one there, he was sharing space at my family altar w/ a bunch of other gods that i can't translate into english, so i won't. This "idea" of buddhism that you all have from the comments your writing is an Americanized religious ideal. It is the same thing as Chinese takeout, Chinese takeout is not Chinese food, it is evolved Chinese food for the American palette, because it is what Chinese food takeout ppl have experimented with for 80 years (it's been around that long) and Americans are comfortable eating, just like this whole buddhist "philosophy" bs is what Americans conjured up cuz they do not understand buddhism.
Who cares if she's bat-**** crazy? I mean as long as she's not a drooling gimp and you don't plan to have children, if she's hot she's hot (albeit a mental case).
[Edit]
You might want to consider taking precautions against getting bitten, I suppose.
well, arguably your 'praying' to the fat man was itself an american ideal imposed on him, hmmmmmmmmmmm?
I should make one emendation to my statement above, which is that, from what i've read, to be more accurate, buddhism didnt become a 'religion' in the western sense until it reached japan. From what i understand it was in japan that buddhism acquired the element of 'faith' that is more comparable to western notions of 'faith', and they do pray to him there. But in most of its career, from india to china and sri lanka, it was mainly seen as a philosophy rather than a religion in the western sense, they didnt pray to buddha, they saw him as a teacher like socrates.
Chinese religion isn't classifiable, in these straight up, i'm a christian, while i'm a jew terms.
Sometimes you just have to admit that reading wiki, will not lead you to enlightenment.Yes, some people in parts of China will pray to Amida Buddha in much the same way that a Hindu would pray to Ganesh - all the while also believing in the ideals of Confucianism and the mysticism of Taoism.
^---
This is pretty much that, buddhism is different in many parts of the world. To me buddhism isn't as much a religion as it is now blended into Chinese beliefs. You mix some of this and some of that, just as quad laid out it's not a defined term.
Tho i do think the way Americans perceive it takes it to a different view, just like how Yoga has become a best seller on the wii fit.
Worst $2 I ever spent.
I guess it'd be to disagree on the classification of buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. It's a religion, it can't be classified as a philosophy because it seems to be "transcending" other areas of thought, when you have what ppl believe to be a philosophy say that if you do bad in this world, your gonna be a goat in the next afterlife, then that introduces consequences, dress it up as karma if you like, but i can't believe my friend's autistic kid really fcked someone over in his past life to deserve what he is now, thats not philosophy, thats religion.
Is there a CLAUS somewhere that states this?No, there is no sanity clause!
The philosophical lies here: Why do you assume that the autistic kid is the negative state of being resulting from ****ing someone over? My Dad once told me Buddhism can be distilled somewhat into the following "truths":
1) Suffering exists.
2) Suffering exists for a reason.
3) Identify the reason and it is possible to eliminate the suffering.
Oversimplified, certainly, but perhaps less so than you might think. The difficulty is in properly identifying the reason, especially if you take "God's will" out of the equation. The goal of becoming enlightened is to become free of the fetters that cloud our judgement of what we perceive so that we may see clearly what is and act accordingly, causing less disharmony with reality. Also the concept of Karma is not solely relegated to ones personal missteps, but rather the cause and effect balance of reality in general, affecting not only ones personal karma but the karma of all reality in contact with it.
In that context, Karma is a bit like a diet caste system. Things like that originated with the aim of making the poor and downtrodden blame themselves for their own lot.
Religions are very good for keeping the uneducated in check for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful...
I guess it'd be to disagree on the classification of buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. It's a religion, it can't be classified as a philosophy because it seems to be "transcending" other areas of thought, when you have what ppl believe to be a philosophy say that if you do bad in this world, your gonna be a goat in the next afterlife, then that introduces consequences, dress it up as karma if you like, but i can't believe my friend's autistic kid really fcked someone over in his past life to deserve what he is now, thats not philosophy, thats religion.
Since we're talking zen ...
While recently looking for the latest Nuts&Volts at the local thrift store I purchased ZEN BLOCKS
Show Image(http://www.familypastimes.com/Multi-Age/Resources/zenblocksa.jpeg)
It didn't come with any English instructions, beyond a cryptic little paragraph on the back of the box which doesn't make any ****ing sense:
Should I meditate upon these rules until I am struck with an epiphany of Complete Understanding of the Harmonious Objective? Is that the whole point of this maddening game?
Or am I just the victim of bad translation? Or good translation by a babbling imbecile?
He passed the blame to a Chinese company, but apologized for the labels. He said he would contact the furniture maker in Guangzhou and demand they remove all similar labels.
Moore said she's not sure she wants the sofa set in her home.
"Every time I sit on it, I'll think of that," she said.
I know if I called Islam a philosophy I'd get towelheads from the Middle East threatening to blow me up.
It's amazing to me how you can classify buddhism as a philosophy because it is on a higher class than religions such as christianity or islam. Either way, it is a religion, recognized as such by a few billion ppl who practice it as a religion and qualifies for tax free temples.
... when you said "arent we imposing a distinction between 'good muslim' and 'bad muslim'", i hear that line so much on campus from 'well meaning liberals'. I assume you're in college :) Of course we're making such a distinction, why wouldnt we? Dont we make the same distinction when we adjudicate other types of violent cases in our society? Dont we make the same distinction when we talk about christianity or any other religion?
Next you'll see islamics burning copies of the bible in retaliation.
1. I want to thank konrad for the delicious troll food, though i'll reply to that long post in a bit ...I don't know why I do this to myself. Really. I hardly give a **** about politics and religion, I just come here to talk keyboards with hot chicks.
I just come here to talk keyboards with hot chicks.
welly, you almost make this all sound .. civil.
lol, well you've definitely come to the wrong forum ;)Yeah, I'd already realized that a while back. Where's all those hot chicks the internet promised me, eh? Lies, all lies.
I think someone should make a movie about these women, to bring them to life as real people - so that we can see the kind of appalling cruelty that is being implicitly condoned by those who would claim that Muhammad is God's Prophet. Rather than an empty gesture, this would make it clear why we have a hard time showing them as much respect as they might like.
It looks like a fairly serious bit of aerobic workout. Why hasn't this guy lost any weight?Maybe he will eventually, if he does that workout more than once, repeating it on a regular basis, without keeling over from a heart attack.
Just saw this news item:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/burning+cancelled+Ground+Zero+mosque+will+moved/3500632/story.html (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/burning+cancelled+Ground+Zero+mosque+will+moved/3500632/story.html)
We can all breathe a sigh of relief.
So here's a case where the threat of violence suppressed a protected act of free speech.No, a case where, if the mosque really does get moved (that part is now unconfirmed in more recent news stories) it's a case where a threatened act of disrespect suppressed a protected act of mosque-building.
"Yay"?
No, a case where, if the mosque really does get moved (that part is now unconfirmed in more recent news stories) it's a case where a threatened act of disrespect suppressed a protected act of mosque-building.
This time, they blinked!
Anyways, I don't think that the Islamic world would learn anything from a Quran-burning, so while I wouldn't agree with letting violence suppress it, I would agree with choosing our targets better. Why gratuitously offend anyone?
But that applies to artists who would gratuitously offend Christians too.
yea, just like how comedy central won't let south park show what mohammud looks like! (or rather their depiction of mohammud)
yup, its pure hostage-taking. Free speech taken hostage, under the gun, and with impunity.
It's getting pretty tired to see people today presume to know precise details about exactly how events more than 1000 years ago went down,Actually, that's not really the point.
Demonstrators burned a US flag and chanted "Death to Christians".
quadibloc who is attempting rational debate with oranjoos,I don't know. Some people would say that suggesting we castrate 500 million Muslims isn't "rational". At least that's one way a person with suitable politics could read my post.
To be fair you'd have to castrate catholics as well. It's not like they ever need it anyways. And you'd be doing all the little boys of the world a favour.What about the music-lovers of the world? (They did it to themselves once, at least a few of themselves.)
Hmmm, seems perfectly rational to me. These people happen to be making a statement which identifies American Christians as their enemy (not incorrectly, I think, btw, though that's a different issue).Why would anyone dislike the USA.
America is fighting to assert radical western values like "freedom of speech" in those oppressively backward places, I thought?
Flag burning haters are idiots, true, but in America they would be tolerated. People would mock and revile them while also applauding and celebrating the fact that these losers have the balls and the right to openly declare these disgusting beliefs in public. So why is this so intolerable to America when it happens in faraway foreign lands? Even places like, say, Paris or Baghdad or Moscow?
Would qoran-burning muslim haters be more palettable? Or America-worshipping Christian converts?
The expectation seems to be that oppression against freedom of speech is only tyrannical until the people start expressing hatred towards America. I suppose they should all automatically be ****ing grateful instead? Their evil tyrants and corrupt governments certainly needed to be addressed, but there's obviously no great love for America. There wasn't even before the foreign invaders arrived and started spilling blood.
Flag burning haters are idiots, true, but in America they would be tolerated. People would mock and revile them while also applauding and celebrating the fact that these losers have the balls and the right to openly declare these disgusting beliefs in public. So why is this so intolerable to America when it happens in faraway foreign lands? Even places like, say, Paris or Baghdad or Moscow?
Would qoran-burning muslim haters be more palettable? Or America-worshipping Christian converts?
The expectation seems to be that oppression against freedom of speech is only tyrannical until the people start expressing hatred towards America. I suppose they should all automatically be ****ing grateful instead? Their evil tyrants and corrupt governments certainly needed to be addressed, but there's obviously no great love for America. There wasn't even before the foreign invaders arrived and started spilling blood.
Hmmm, seems perfectly rational to me. These people happen to be making a statement which identifies American Christians as their enemy (not incorrectly, I think, btw, though that's a different issue).America is not the enemy of anyone because he wants to fast during Ramadan or pray five times a day.
quad, the "kind of society" you describe could just as easily be Ireland. Just replace "Christian" and "Muslim" with "Catholic" and "Protestant".
What are "The Protocols"?Not something you would ever be quoting from, except perhaps to refute it. "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is a forgery, purported to be the record of a discussion among secret Jewish leaders of their plot to bring the rest of the world under their control. It was actually a plagiarized rework of a Russian novel.
Not something you would ever be quoting from ... "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"Shhh! The apocryphal secrets of the Illuminati must never be revealed!
Not something you would ever be quoting from, except perhaps to refute it. "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"
but it explains so much!!!! Especially for people who cant understand the world without conspiracy theory!Eh? You mean there's other explanations?
Of course it only is getting a two star rating anyway and since you are the biggest poster in the thread.....My vote bumped it up to 3. So it's more important now.
Actually, that's not really the point.
Since the claim that Muhammad attacked Jewish communities and ended up killing the men and enslaving the women is based on Muslim historical sources, that means that there are people who:
- believe this is how it happened,
- believe that the instigator of these events is God's Prophet, and are therefore unable to totally, utterly, and unreservedly condemn, abhor, and abominate such behavior, and
- are post-pubescent males.
The very existence of individuals satisfying those conditions is a deadly threat.
If, instead, the Islamic world was saying that Muhammad would never do such horrible things, and it is all fabricated Zionist propaganda, even if they were wrong, it wouldn't be a serious problem.
konrad, how does it make you feel that oranjoos is the type of person you're attracting? :)
ok, i'm going to just come out and say it. Oranjoos is a [edit: remainder of post removed by me cuz its really not worth it. The gist of it was that rational arguments against his posts may be a waste of time].
lol, sorry rippy, i'm not 'pissed off' (tho why that should please you in any case is beyond me... oh yea, cuz you're a troll), my comment above was actually for quadibloc who is attempting rational debate with oranjoos, and i was merely saying to quadibloc, 'dont bother cuz oranjoos is a conspiracy lunatic'. that was really about it.
but hey, you know what? I shall now call you what i was going to call oranjoos: a moron. :-D
:biggrin::laugh::laugh::laugh::cheer2::bounce:
:rofl:
actually i havent yet called you any names. I called ripster a name.
frankly you're not worth it oranjoos.
...
really oranjoos? Didnt you just prove that i didnt call you any names?
In fact I went out of my way to edit a post to remove a name for you, saying it wasnt worth it, as you rightly show above.
thanks for proving my point.
[p.s., i do however reserve the right to call you a name in the future ;) ]
konrad, how does it make you feel that oranjoos is the type of person you're attracting? :)
ok, i'm going to just come out and say it. Oranjoos is a [edit: remainder of post removed by me cuz its really not worth it. The gist of it was that rational arguments against his posts may be a waste of time].
lol, sorry rippy, i'm not 'pissed off' (tho why that should please you in any case is beyond me... oh yea, cuz you're a troll), my comment above was actually for quadibloc who is attempting rational debate with oranjoos, and i was merely saying to quadibloc, 'dont bother cuz oranjoos is a conspiracy lunatic'. that was really about it.
but hey, you know what? I shall now call you what i was going to call oranjoos: a moron. :-D
:biggrin::laugh::laugh::laugh::cheer2::bounce:
:rofl:
I'm sorry if I offended you
He called me a pooh-pooh head, oranjoose.
I think I'd rather be a conspiracy theorist, if only because they seem to be more popular.
I couldn't find that reference anywhere on western google, Comrade ripster. Maybe it's because in the west this important function is fullfilled with pencils instead of chopsticks.
[Edit]
Perhaps time for a new avatar.
Hey LOOK - more funny Japanese bra pictures.I was wondering where you got this from, but now I was able to find http://mostlymumbling.blogspot.com/2010/05/bizarre-bras-by-triumph-japan.html which, while it doesn't illustrate that particular undergarment, illustrates one of the ones noted earlier, called "Mr. Chopsticks".
I was in heaven, I was in hell
Believe in neither but, fear them as well
Boob-worshipping is unconnected to religious brand name. Hell, even Satanists can worship boobs.
Show Image(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2009/10/god_chart.jpg)
The spiritual question of utmost profundity is: "Do You Think Underwear Can Be Magical?"
heh heh you said boobiesShow Image(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/5038745449_48c7e8d6ec_z.jpg)
My son discovered this on his TI-84Plus while the family was watching the Britney Spears episode on "Glee".
That's my boy!