Beyond that, anything is "conceivable", and that is exactly what I mean.
You too can see the light!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Maybe so... but is there such a distinction?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course.
The traditional Judeo-Christian model defines Deity along certain parameters. That Deity is Omniscient and Omnipotent, as well as several others things. There is also no one model in all of this, as some prefer to emphasise separate aspects of divinity and to give that Deity both a Separate and a Human nature.
The Heremetic model treats Deity as The All and states that we are all products of the infinite mind of the all. This holds a completely different set of ramifications from the Judeo-Christian model. This All is a part of everything and we are to It like Tiny Tim is to Charles Dickens, except where Tiny Tim is the product of a finite mind, we are the products of an Infinite Mind.
The Wiccans fall closer to the Hermetic model, except that they understand that people have a hard time grasping The All, so they simplify It and represent It by its characteristics of Gender: God and Goddess.
The latter does not, by way of example, consider any consenting relationship between adults "evil" by nature. This is in stark contrast from the traditional view of the Judeo-Christian Deity: where both Adultery and Fornication are viewed as sins.
Then we have the Shinto, a more naturalistic religion that believes in a continuing process of discovery that is unique to each individual, rather than a "revelation model" or a "prophet model."
There is also a "Deist Model" which is where such a Deity is disconnected from our events.
The list, of course, continues.
The Deities in these cases need to be discussed as separate enteties when it comes to what can be infered about how they may or may not interact with the world.
Whether the Deity is all powerful in respect to the Universe, is a separate issue from whether the Deity is all powerful with respect to itself, is a separate issue with how does that Omnipotence manifest itself.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Maybe so... but is there such a distinction?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course.
The traditional Judeo-Christian model defines Deity along certain parameters. That Deity is Omniscient and Omnipotent, as well as several others things. There is also no one model in all of this, as some prefer to emphasise separate aspects of divinity and to give that Deity both a Separate and a Human nature.
The Heremetic model treats Deity as The All and states that we are all products of the infinite mind of the all. This holds a completely different set of ramifications from the Judeo-Christian model. This All is a part of everything and we are to It like Tiny Tim is to Charles Dickens, except where Tiny Tim is the product of a finite mind, we are the products of an Infinite Mind.
The Wiccans fall closer to the Hermetic model, except that they understand that people have a hard time grasping The All, so they simplify It and represent It by its characteristics of Gender: God and Goddess.
The latter does not, by way of example, consider any consenting relationship between adults "evil" by nature. This is in stark contrast from the traditional view of the Judeo-Christian Deity: where both Adultery and Fornication are viewed as sins.
Then we have the Shinto, a more naturalistic religion that believes in a continuing process of discovery that is unique to each individual, rather than a "revelation model" or a "prophet model."
There is also a "Deist Model" which is where such a Deity is disconnected from our events.
The list, of course, continues.
The Deities in these cases need to be discussed as separate enteties when it comes to what can be infered about how they may or may not interact with the world.
Whether the Deity is all powerful in respect to the Universe, is a separate issue from whether the Deity is all powerful with respect to itself, is a separate issue with how does that Omnipotence manifest itself.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B> Fine, prove that 0 is a number.
Science and mathematics, all of it, is founded on a set of guiding assumptions that cannot be tested and cannot be proven. See Principia Mathematica and Goedel's Incompleteness Proof.
Further, as I said, Cosmology and Quantum Physics are *mutuallly exclusive* and every theory of the Universe's Origins (including Hawking's), requires that the laws of physics go *poof*.
String Theory and Abiogeneisis are both *unfalsifiable*. Isn't this one of the criteria for pseudoscience?
Is it any wonder that the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are Phyisicists and Mathematicians?
Finally, before you patronize me again, read up on information theory and abiogenesis.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
rofl! well if you put it that way, then like muma said, you cant prove anything. So since I cant prove that 0 is a number math is not a stable theory?! well, for one, Zero is what we lable something which has no value aka baratos. and asking that was just a good example of how most people get nowhere when they argue semantics. Well, first we would have to figure out what exactly a number is, then of coarse we would set zero as the null. but then again you cant really say what a number is because there is no way to prove it...but that is in the non-tangable sense...now if I have 2 apples and i ate the whole to apples, I would have zero apples and that would prove what zero is...just like I could prove that the number two by getting 2 apples from the store. I would then have 2 apples.
So you really cant argue mathmatics...in its most simplistic form it is undenyable as set a law of nature as we are alive...but then again, can you really prove that you are alive? (stretch) couldn't we just be some figment of somebody's imagination or a part of an intricate dream of some massive consciousness? But wouldn't we exist in this consciousness? well well then we would only be existant reletive to that entity same as numbers exist reletive to us...
It is a waste of time to argue semantics of existance. Face it, science and math are about the closes things we have to being able to "prove" anything. So when I say it has been proven, well as far as anything else, it has.
<B> Fine, prove that 0 is a number.
Science and mathematics, all of it, is founded on a set of guiding assumptions that cannot be tested and cannot be proven. See Principia Mathematica and Goedel's Incompleteness Proof.
Further, as I said, Cosmology and Quantum Physics are *mutuallly exclusive* and every theory of the Universe's Origins (including Hawking's), requires that the laws of physics go *poof*.
String Theory and Abiogeneisis are both *unfalsifiable*. Isn't this one of the criteria for pseudoscience?
Is it any wonder that the two groups of scientists most likely to believe in a deity are Phyisicists and Mathematicians?
Finally, before you patronize me again, read up on information theory and abiogenesis.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
rofl! well if you put it that way, then like muma said, you cant prove anything. So since I cant prove that 0 is a number math is not a stable theory?! well, for one, Zero is what we lable something which has no value aka baratos. and asking that was just a good example of how most people get nowhere when they argue semantics. Well, first we would have to figure out what exactly a number is, then of coarse we would set zero as the null. but then again you cant really say what a number is because there is no way to prove it...but that is in the non-tangable sense...now if I have 2 apples and i ate the whole to apples, I would have zero apples and that would prove what zero is...just like I could prove that the number two by getting 2 apples from the store. I would then have 2 apples.
So you really cant argue mathmatics...in its most simplistic form it is undenyable as set a law of nature as we are alive...but then again, can you really prove that you are alive? (stretch) couldn't we just be some figment of somebody's imagination or a part of an intricate dream of some massive consciousness? But wouldn't we exist in this consciousness? well well then we would only be existant reletive to that entity same as numbers exist reletive to us...
It is a waste of time to argue semantics of existance. Face it, science and math are about the closes things we have to being able to "prove" anything. So when I say it has been proven, well as far as anything else, it has.
I didn't read the ton of responses yet, so I don't know if this has already been posted.. but if you want more hilarity out of the Dark Dungeons Chick tract (yes, it's 100% real.. i've been handed it on the street here in chicago)
MST3K Meets Dark Dungeons
-Laxlez
MST3K Meets Dark Dungeons
-Laxlez
The assumption that God is an all-powerful entity is not necessarily a Judeo-Christian assumption. The ontological argument for the existence of God states that "that, than which no greater can be conceived" (God, and yes I am aware that this quote is contained in a passage of the bible; this does not necessitate that the ontological argument is used specifically to quantify Judeo-Christian religions) entails that an all-powerful God must exist. For if one is to imagine an entity in which no greater can be conceived (an entity which has no limitations), that entity must be all-powerful and omniscient, and must exist. Imagine a being which is all-powerful and omniscient, but does not exist. The next step, logically and conceivably, would be an all-powerful entity which *does* exist.
Of course, this creates all sorts of absurdities to rival that of actually infinite sets applied in reality, and is purely silly. So is arguing whether or not God exists. What happens when a scientific explanation is found for what was once deemed a miracle? That act is robbed of its miraculuousness. Were we to find some way to discover that God truly exists, (given the limited foundations of our human mental capacity, this would require that "proof" be purely scientific and not philosophic) then we would rob God of His/Her/Its (remember, this is a limitless God, right?) Godliness.
Attempting to quantify God is the equivalent of 2 + 4 = purple. Peace and Love, people. Don't fight! It hurts my tree-hugging heart!
Of course, this creates all sorts of absurdities to rival that of actually infinite sets applied in reality, and is purely silly. So is arguing whether or not God exists. What happens when a scientific explanation is found for what was once deemed a miracle? That act is robbed of its miraculuousness. Were we to find some way to discover that God truly exists, (given the limited foundations of our human mental capacity, this would require that "proof" be purely scientific and not philosophic) then we would rob God of His/Her/Its (remember, this is a limitless God, right?) Godliness.
Attempting to quantify God is the equivalent of 2 + 4 = purple. Peace and Love, people. Don't fight! It hurts my tree-hugging heart!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The ontological argument for the existence of God states that "that, than which no greater can be conceived"
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Assuming the use of the Ontological Arugment, which I don't use.
The argument as to the potential existance of God has both meaning and merit, since its results have direct and immediate effect upon the nature of what we can and cannot do.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
The ontological argument for the existence of God states that "that, than which no greater can be conceived"
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Assuming the use of the Ontological Arugment, which I don't use.
The argument as to the potential existance of God has both meaning and merit, since its results have direct and immediate effect upon the nature of what we can and cannot do.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Intolerance sucks.
Those who have derided the religious in this thread have demonstrated that intolerance still exists in the absence of religion.
As for applying mathematics to mysticism: I hope nobody really expects to uproot entrenched (dis)beliefs with context-less citations of the sort we've seen here. Having minored in formal logic, I understand the fragments being bandied about but I question their usefulness here.
To each his/her own!
Mp
Those who have derided the religious in this thread have demonstrated that intolerance still exists in the absence of religion.
As for applying mathematics to mysticism: I hope nobody really expects to uproot entrenched (dis)beliefs with context-less citations of the sort we've seen here. Having minored in formal logic, I understand the fragments being bandied about but I question their usefulness here.
To each his/her own!
Mp
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mplor:
Those who have derided the religious in this thread have demonstrated that intolerance still exists in the absence of religion.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is the usual dilemma for the free democratic states.
Do we outlaw nazism because it is against the ideas of liberty? Or do we allow it because the concept of outlawing thoughts would be against our ideals?
It is the same problem with several religions, including christianity. They have a bloody history, they have intolerance for others.
What is true tolerance? Allowing an ideology with intolerant views to act freely, or ban them because they do not agree with the principles of tolerance?
[This message has been edited by Jegzed (edited 03-04-2002).]
Those who have derided the religious in this thread have demonstrated that intolerance still exists in the absence of religion.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is the usual dilemma for the free democratic states.
Do we outlaw nazism because it is against the ideas of liberty? Or do we allow it because the concept of outlawing thoughts would be against our ideals?
It is the same problem with several religions, including christianity. They have a bloody history, they have intolerance for others.
What is true tolerance? Allowing an ideology with intolerant views to act freely, or ban them because they do not agree with the principles of tolerance?
[This message has been edited by Jegzed (edited 03-04-2002).]
Cherzra, you are confusing the house with the people who temporarily inhabit it. The house is built, but the purpose of the house is defined by those who occupy it, even if that purpose goes against the original intent of the builders.
It is not the theory which causes pain and misery unless the theory preaches pain and misery, and even then it is STILL not the theory, but the people who take it to heart. If a specific belief set preaches... oh, let's say "tolerance for all," then is it the foundation of that belief which is at fault when a sect breaks off of it because they have determined that "tolerance for all" means that those who do not exhibit what they consider to be tolerance are to be put to death?
The difference between theology and mathematics is that the majority of mathematical dilemmas can be broken down in a viewable form (written) until an "answer" is arrived at. What is two plus two? The answer is a concept which almost every adult alive can grasp.
Almost every adult. There are still those who may or may not grasp the concept, either because they are not mentally adequate to the task, or simply because they have not been introduced to the concept. Yes, that's a stretch, but it's a possiblity, and one of the very few unshakable beliefs that I have is that everything in this universe is possible, and that means everything.
Your choice of a belief set is very personal to you, and much of it is based on the experiences you have known in your life. Okay, all of it is based on the experiences you have known, because something, somewhere, somehow had to touch you in a way which would get you to believe in a thing. There are people in this world who have had experiences which have led them to hold a deep faith in whatever it is they believe in, and for anybody to refute that as false only indicates that they have not had an experience which stirs them in that direction.
Faith is not a quantifiable object, it is something which has to be experienced, and THAT is what many who refute the potential of faith can not relate to.
Is there an afterlife? I fully believe that there is. Why? Because I had an experience which led me to believe that there is, at a time when I did not believe in an afterlife, and it changed my entire outlook on that belief set. Can I verify my experience? In a limited fashion, yes, because I documented the experience with witnesses, and the experience was backed up with events which occurred after the event. Can those events be written off as sheer circumstance? Yes. Will that change the way I feel about the occurrence? Not in the least, because I experienced it in a way which leads me to believe there is good reason for me to trust in the occurrence. Faith.
It's been years, so somebody tell me which philosopher it was who stated, basically, that the greatest sin was in not choosing to choose. If you have taken a position that all theology is hogwash, fine, but even scientists admit that all things in this universe are possible, and if you stand completely firm that there is NO greater power, then you are taking a stance on the limitations of the universe which cannot be proved, which is as fantastic as believing in a greater power which cannot be proved.
I know a lot, but with all that I know, I realize that I can never know all that there is to know. Unless I can know all that there is to know, I cannot prove the existence or absence of a greater power unless that greater power reveals itself to me.
All that I know, is that in the scope of all things there is to know, I know nothing.
It is not the theory which causes pain and misery unless the theory preaches pain and misery, and even then it is STILL not the theory, but the people who take it to heart. If a specific belief set preaches... oh, let's say "tolerance for all," then is it the foundation of that belief which is at fault when a sect breaks off of it because they have determined that "tolerance for all" means that those who do not exhibit what they consider to be tolerance are to be put to death?
The difference between theology and mathematics is that the majority of mathematical dilemmas can be broken down in a viewable form (written) until an "answer" is arrived at. What is two plus two? The answer is a concept which almost every adult alive can grasp.
Almost every adult. There are still those who may or may not grasp the concept, either because they are not mentally adequate to the task, or simply because they have not been introduced to the concept. Yes, that's a stretch, but it's a possiblity, and one of the very few unshakable beliefs that I have is that everything in this universe is possible, and that means everything.
Your choice of a belief set is very personal to you, and much of it is based on the experiences you have known in your life. Okay, all of it is based on the experiences you have known, because something, somewhere, somehow had to touch you in a way which would get you to believe in a thing. There are people in this world who have had experiences which have led them to hold a deep faith in whatever it is they believe in, and for anybody to refute that as false only indicates that they have not had an experience which stirs them in that direction.
Faith is not a quantifiable object, it is something which has to be experienced, and THAT is what many who refute the potential of faith can not relate to.
Is there an afterlife? I fully believe that there is. Why? Because I had an experience which led me to believe that there is, at a time when I did not believe in an afterlife, and it changed my entire outlook on that belief set. Can I verify my experience? In a limited fashion, yes, because I documented the experience with witnesses, and the experience was backed up with events which occurred after the event. Can those events be written off as sheer circumstance? Yes. Will that change the way I feel about the occurrence? Not in the least, because I experienced it in a way which leads me to believe there is good reason for me to trust in the occurrence. Faith.
It's been years, so somebody tell me which philosopher it was who stated, basically, that the greatest sin was in not choosing to choose. If you have taken a position that all theology is hogwash, fine, but even scientists admit that all things in this universe are possible, and if you stand completely firm that there is NO greater power, then you are taking a stance on the limitations of the universe which cannot be proved, which is as fantastic as believing in a greater power which cannot be proved.
I know a lot, but with all that I know, I realize that I can never know all that there is to know. Unless I can know all that there is to know, I cannot prove the existence or absence of a greater power unless that greater power reveals itself to me.
All that I know, is that in the scope of all things there is to know, I know nothing.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>
Fact is that religions have caused nothing but war, death and pain over the centuries. If it were not for science, we'd still be burning witches and living in the squalid middle ages. I'm proud that my ancestors fought the church and the inquisition, giving me the right to dismiss religion as a fraud. Because it is.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IT's ppl that cause war, not religion, and they will use any excuse for why they are battling. [edit] ok, i don't know anything about politics...but isn't that a big reason ppl battle as well?[/edit]
btw animals war against each other too, and guess over what: Territory, females, etc.
[This message has been edited by muma (edited 03-04-2002).]
<B>
Fact is that religions have caused nothing but war, death and pain over the centuries. If it were not for science, we'd still be burning witches and living in the squalid middle ages. I'm proud that my ancestors fought the church and the inquisition, giving me the right to dismiss religion as a fraud. Because it is.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IT's ppl that cause war, not religion, and they will use any excuse for why they are battling. [edit] ok, i don't know anything about politics...but isn't that a big reason ppl battle as well?[/edit]
btw animals war against each other too, and guess over what: Territory, females, etc.
[This message has been edited by muma (edited 03-04-2002).]
Let me give you two examples of massacres and hate that are happening right now. Brought to you courtesy of the joys of religion.
The muslims vs the christians in Indonesia
the muslims vs the hindus in India
These are just two off the top of my head. It's a rather strange fact that if there's a war, chances are it's over some silly religion. Throughout history it's brought nothing but repression, pain and war. Even if many people just practise it without bothering others, there are a great deal that just want to enforce it on others.
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 03-04-2002).]
The muslims vs the christians in Indonesia
the muslims vs the hindus in India
These are just two off the top of my head. It's a rather strange fact that if there's a war, chances are it's over some silly religion. Throughout history it's brought nothing but repression, pain and war. Even if many people just practise it without bothering others, there are a great deal that just want to enforce it on others.
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 03-04-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
These are just two off the top of my head. It's a rather strange fact that if there's a war, chances are it's over some silly religion. Throughout history it's brought nothing but repression, pain and war. Even if many people just practise it without bothering others, there are a great deal that just want to enforce it on others.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually the idea of "war for the sake of conversion" was a new idea with the advent of Constatine's Christianity.
You'll also find, looking back, that a great deal of science was accomplished because of religion, but then I wouldn't expect you to see that even if I put the evidence directly in front of you.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
These are just two off the top of my head. It's a rather strange fact that if there's a war, chances are it's over some silly religion. Throughout history it's brought nothing but repression, pain and war. Even if many people just practise it without bothering others, there are a great deal that just want to enforce it on others.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually the idea of "war for the sake of conversion" was a new idea with the advent of Constatine's Christianity.
You'll also find, looking back, that a great deal of science was accomplished because of religion, but then I wouldn't expect you to see that even if I put the evidence directly in front of you.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
I challenge everyone to give me one example of a provable apodictic truth. By apodictic, I mean something that is true in all times, in all situations, and in all locations.
We tried this in a Rhetoric and Western Thought class I had in college, and we couldn't come up with any.
As to religion, I believe human nature corrupts all ideals. Every major religion has the "golden rule", yet on a group level, few practice it. The Muslim religion considers Christian and Jewish believers as "people of the book" holding preferred status over other non-muslim religions (kinda like they have some of it right, part of the message, and are on the right track) Yet treat both those peoples with contempt in the Middle Eastern areas. (Muslims that I know I get along well with and have great theological discussions with, so they obviosly read that passage in the Koran)
Anytime you involve a power structure, it will do what it takes to protect itself.
EX: The first council of Nicea was presented with 54 gospels, the burgeoning powerstructure later to be known as the Roman Catholic Church chose only 4 to be in what is now known as the Bible, why? They supported said fledgling power structure.
I have faith, and a belief, I don't choose to press it on anyone, and appreciate others beliefs. I believe in helping people gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their beliefs through asking about them, and questioning them when I am unclear to their perspective. In short, I try to walk a mile in the other person's shoes.
The challenge I began the post with was something we did for fun, please take it in that light, it is a self challenge, not one of me challenging anyone's beliefs.
Toplack *The Not-Right Reverend* Frostbear
We tried this in a Rhetoric and Western Thought class I had in college, and we couldn't come up with any.
As to religion, I believe human nature corrupts all ideals. Every major religion has the "golden rule", yet on a group level, few practice it. The Muslim religion considers Christian and Jewish believers as "people of the book" holding preferred status over other non-muslim religions (kinda like they have some of it right, part of the message, and are on the right track) Yet treat both those peoples with contempt in the Middle Eastern areas. (Muslims that I know I get along well with and have great theological discussions with, so they obviosly read that passage in the Koran)
Anytime you involve a power structure, it will do what it takes to protect itself.
EX: The first council of Nicea was presented with 54 gospels, the burgeoning powerstructure later to be known as the Roman Catholic Church chose only 4 to be in what is now known as the Bible, why? They supported said fledgling power structure.
I have faith, and a belief, I don't choose to press it on anyone, and appreciate others beliefs. I believe in helping people gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their beliefs through asking about them, and questioning them when I am unclear to their perspective. In short, I try to walk a mile in the other person's shoes.
The challenge I began the post with was something we did for fun, please take it in that light, it is a self challenge, not one of me challenging anyone's beliefs.
Toplack *The Not-Right Reverend* Frostbear
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I challenge everyone to give me one example of a provable apodictic truth. By apodictic, I mean something that is true in all times, in all situations, and in all locations.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bell's Inequality.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
I challenge everyone to give me one example of a provable apodictic truth. By apodictic, I mean something that is true in all times, in all situations, and in all locations.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bell's Inequality.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
"Condemn those who warp the foundations of a theology for their own perverted goals, not the theology. " - Ashiwi
Unfortunately, that is most often the leaders of said theology. After warping the theology, they get to pass it down to the masses. At this point, I doubt there is much left of the original theology in most religions.
Elseenas: You are throwing around a lot of mathspeak and physicsspeak. Just because I'm lazy, can you define some of these things for me:
Abiogenesis
Cosmology XOR Quantum Physics
Goedel's Incompleteness Proof
String Theory
Unfalsifiable
Peano's Axioms
Axiom of Identity
Peano Arithmatic
Anyways, isn't the reason it's easier for us to believe in physics and mathematics because it's reproducible?
Cherzra: Read more carefully what Elseenas originally wrote. Mathmeticians and Physicists are the most likely types of scientists to believe in God. Not the most likely types of people.
(Bleh! Can't believe how many posts that little misunderstanding took up...)
Moritheil: What's pascal's wager?
Dezex: If God were all powerful, he should most certainly be able to make a circle into a square. The stone thing is kinda tricky though... heh.
"Your choice of a belief set is very personal to you, and much of it is based on the experiences you have known in your life. Okay, all of it is based on the experiences you have known, because something, somewhere, somehow had to touch you in a way which would get you to believe in a thing. There are people in this world who have had experiences which have led them to hold a deep faith in whatever it is they believe in, and for anybody to refute that as false only indicates that they have not had an experience which stirs them in that direction." - Ashiwi
But this isn't true. Most often people's belief's are handed down to them by their parents or religious leaders (see above.) Do you think that the pilot who flew a plane into the WTC _chose_ to believe that would get him into heaven? No, that belief was forced down his throat during his childhood by religious leaders... or his parents, who'd had it shoved down their throat by religious leaders...
Elseenas: Bell's Inequality?
Sarvis
Unfortunately, that is most often the leaders of said theology. After warping the theology, they get to pass it down to the masses. At this point, I doubt there is much left of the original theology in most religions.
Elseenas: You are throwing around a lot of mathspeak and physicsspeak. Just because I'm lazy, can you define some of these things for me:
Abiogenesis
Cosmology XOR Quantum Physics
Goedel's Incompleteness Proof
String Theory
Unfalsifiable
Peano's Axioms
Axiom of Identity
Peano Arithmatic
Anyways, isn't the reason it's easier for us to believe in physics and mathematics because it's reproducible?
Cherzra: Read more carefully what Elseenas originally wrote. Mathmeticians and Physicists are the most likely types of scientists to believe in God. Not the most likely types of people.
(Bleh! Can't believe how many posts that little misunderstanding took up...)
Moritheil: What's pascal's wager?
Dezex: If God were all powerful, he should most certainly be able to make a circle into a square. The stone thing is kinda tricky though... heh.
"Your choice of a belief set is very personal to you, and much of it is based on the experiences you have known in your life. Okay, all of it is based on the experiences you have known, because something, somewhere, somehow had to touch you in a way which would get you to believe in a thing. There are people in this world who have had experiences which have led them to hold a deep faith in whatever it is they believe in, and for anybody to refute that as false only indicates that they have not had an experience which stirs them in that direction." - Ashiwi
But this isn't true. Most often people's belief's are handed down to them by their parents or religious leaders (see above.) Do you think that the pilot who flew a plane into the WTC _chose_ to believe that would get him into heaven? No, that belief was forced down his throat during his childhood by religious leaders... or his parents, who'd had it shoved down their throat by religious leaders...
Elseenas: Bell's Inequality?
Sarvis
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B> You'll also find, looking back, that a great deal of science was accomplished because of religion, but then I wouldn't expect you to see that even if I put the evidence directly in front of you.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like what? If you mean the persecution of scientists, then you are absolutely right. Again I tell you to back up your words, just like your previous claim, but I'm sure you will just come up with utter nonsense claiming how I misinterpreted and misquoted your post.
I have no idea why I'm arguing with your kind of people, you are already brainwashed and there is not point in it. How I wish you could all just go back to the middle ages. You could enjoy living on a flat world, burn witches, fatten your own pockets over the populace's back, keep everyone stupid, and persecute anyone who disagrees or wants to look beyond the length of their nose. Sickening zealot.
<B> You'll also find, looking back, that a great deal of science was accomplished because of religion, but then I wouldn't expect you to see that even if I put the evidence directly in front of you.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like what? If you mean the persecution of scientists, then you are absolutely right. Again I tell you to back up your words, just like your previous claim, but I'm sure you will just come up with utter nonsense claiming how I misinterpreted and misquoted your post.
I have no idea why I'm arguing with your kind of people, you are already brainwashed and there is not point in it. How I wish you could all just go back to the middle ages. You could enjoy living on a flat world, burn witches, fatten your own pockets over the populace's back, keep everyone stupid, and persecute anyone who disagrees or wants to look beyond the length of their nose. Sickening zealot.
k, let me take this one step at a time
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Abiogenesis
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Essentially life comming from nonlife.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Cosmology XOR Quantum Physics
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cosmology deals with theories about the Universes Origins, none of which work according to Quantum Physics (violation of Heisenberg IIRC).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Goedel's Incompleteness Proof
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In essence, there are things that are true but that cannot be proven.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
String Theory
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everything in the universe is connected by a set of strings that vibrate in the 11th dimension.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Unfalsifiable
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cannot be falsified. There is nothing that can be reasonably brought against it, in terms of evidence, that can falsify the theory.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Peano's Axioms
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
From Mathworld:
1) Zero is a number
2) If a is a number, the successor of a is a number.
3) zero is not the successor of a number.
4) Two numbers of which the successors are equal are themselves equal.
5) If a set S of numbers contains zero and also the successor of every number in S, then every number is in S.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Axiom of Identity
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A == A
A != !A
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Peano Arithmatic
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Theoretical system that uses the aforementioned axioms.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Anyways, isn't the reason it's easier for us to believe in physics and mathematics because it's reproducible?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not particularly.
For instance, there is no experimental evidence that could disprove string theory or abiogenesis. No experiment can even really be set up for either of them.
Further, science makes a lot of statements like "gravity is an attractive force that is proportional to mass" when there is no experimental evidence whether this is the case or whether it is a "repellant force inversely proportional to mass".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Bell's Inequality?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
N( A and !B ) + N( B and C ) >= N( A and C )
IIRC
Where N( P ) = Number of objects in P.
So choose characteristics for A, B, and C and for any given population this inequality holds true.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Abiogenesis
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Essentially life comming from nonlife.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Cosmology XOR Quantum Physics
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cosmology deals with theories about the Universes Origins, none of which work according to Quantum Physics (violation of Heisenberg IIRC).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Goedel's Incompleteness Proof
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In essence, there are things that are true but that cannot be proven.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
String Theory
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everything in the universe is connected by a set of strings that vibrate in the 11th dimension.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Unfalsifiable
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cannot be falsified. There is nothing that can be reasonably brought against it, in terms of evidence, that can falsify the theory.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Peano's Axioms
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
From Mathworld:
1) Zero is a number
2) If a is a number, the successor of a is a number.
3) zero is not the successor of a number.
4) Two numbers of which the successors are equal are themselves equal.
5) If a set S of numbers contains zero and also the successor of every number in S, then every number is in S.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Axiom of Identity
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A == A
A != !A
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Peano Arithmatic
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Theoretical system that uses the aforementioned axioms.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Anyways, isn't the reason it's easier for us to believe in physics and mathematics because it's reproducible?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not particularly.
For instance, there is no experimental evidence that could disprove string theory or abiogenesis. No experiment can even really be set up for either of them.
Further, science makes a lot of statements like "gravity is an attractive force that is proportional to mass" when there is no experimental evidence whether this is the case or whether it is a "repellant force inversely proportional to mass".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Bell's Inequality?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
N( A and !B ) + N( B and C ) >= N( A and C )
IIRC
Where N( P ) = Number of objects in P.
So choose characteristics for A, B, and C and for any given population this inequality holds true.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> What is true tolerance? Allowing an ideology with intolerant views to act freely, or ban them because they do not agree with the principles of tolerance?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a tricky question, I'll grant you that. Some free democratic societies choose to allow freedom of thought, even repulsive thoughts, and draw the line at action. In other words, you can preach intolerance, but when you practice it (whether it be illegal discrimination at the 7-11, or full-blown violence) you have stepped outside the law.
Mp
<B> What is true tolerance? Allowing an ideology with intolerant views to act freely, or ban them because they do not agree with the principles of tolerance?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a tricky question, I'll grant you that. Some free democratic societies choose to allow freedom of thought, even repulsive thoughts, and draw the line at action. In other words, you can preach intolerance, but when you practice it (whether it be illegal discrimination at the 7-11, or full-blown violence) you have stepped outside the law.
Mp
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Like what? If you mean the persecution of scientists, then you are absolutely right. Again I tell you to back up your words, just like your previous claim, but I'm sure you will just come up with utter nonsense claiming how I misinterpreted and misquoted your post.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please Cherzra. To a large degree I am repeating myself.
Copernicus was working for the Church with his treatise.
Kepler saw his work as a fufillment of a Christian Duty to God.
Herb Lore, once part of religion, is now used repeatedly by Pharmecists.
Alchemy, which became Chemistry over the years, was strongly influenced and came about largely as the result of Religion.
The Masons, a well known and for a long time a very spiritual group, applied the principles of "Sacred Geometery" in their work. Sacred Geometry has recently been named Civil Engineering, but the principles have remained the same.
Astrology (specifically knowledge of the constilations) was, to a large degree, used for Sea Navigation. This was originally part of religion.
Care to talk about the advancements in mathematics and geometry made by the Arabs in the name of Allah?
Newton lists "God" as one of his working assumptions in Principia.
Shall I continue?
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Like what? If you mean the persecution of scientists, then you are absolutely right. Again I tell you to back up your words, just like your previous claim, but I'm sure you will just come up with utter nonsense claiming how I misinterpreted and misquoted your post.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please Cherzra. To a large degree I am repeating myself.
Copernicus was working for the Church with his treatise.
Kepler saw his work as a fufillment of a Christian Duty to God.
Herb Lore, once part of religion, is now used repeatedly by Pharmecists.
Alchemy, which became Chemistry over the years, was strongly influenced and came about largely as the result of Religion.
The Masons, a well known and for a long time a very spiritual group, applied the principles of "Sacred Geometery" in their work. Sacred Geometry has recently been named Civil Engineering, but the principles have remained the same.
Astrology (specifically knowledge of the constilations) was, to a large degree, used for Sea Navigation. This was originally part of religion.
Care to talk about the advancements in mathematics and geometry made by the Arabs in the name of Allah?
Newton lists "God" as one of his working assumptions in Principia.
Shall I continue?
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I have no idea why I'm arguing with your kind of people, you are already brainwashed and there is not point in it. How I wish you could all just go back to the middle ages. You could enjoy living on a flat world, burn witches, fatten your own pockets over the populace's back, keep everyone stupid, and persecute anyone who disagrees or wants to look beyond the length of their nose. Sickening zealot.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Emphasis added.
Actually, the spiritual individuals on the board seem to be the ones who are calling for tolerance. You keep making this broad generalization that doesn't even remotely apply, and are accusing people and putting words into their mouths when they disagree with you.
Or didn't you notice?
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
I have no idea why I'm arguing with your kind of people, you are already brainwashed and there is not point in it. How I wish you could all just go back to the middle ages. You could enjoy living on a flat world, burn witches, fatten your own pockets over the populace's back, keep everyone stupid, and persecute anyone who disagrees or wants to look beyond the length of their nose. Sickening zealot.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Emphasis added.
Actually, the spiritual individuals on the board seem to be the ones who are calling for tolerance. You keep making this broad generalization that doesn't even remotely apply, and are accusing people and putting words into their mouths when they disagree with you.
Or didn't you notice?
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
You like to mention Copernicus as an example of the goodness that christianity has brought us? Well here's what happened.
"Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! There even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.". Source: http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm
There are your "virtues" of the faith.
And because Kepler was a religious man, you think that makes all scientific discoveries the work of god? The virtues of religion? You take one man as example, and ignore the hundreds of others who were persecuted, tortured and killed for their work. How typical.
To say that astrology stems from religion because it was used for seafaring, is -utter- nonsense.
Here, let me give you a bigger list.
http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Read it and explain me the virtues of your religions again. The part on the middle ages is especially good. You should be deeply ashamed to herald the "virtues" of this belief, thereby spitting on all the graves of the thousands of innocent people burnt, exploited and tortured.
"Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! There even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.". Source: http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm
There are your "virtues" of the faith.
And because Kepler was a religious man, you think that makes all scientific discoveries the work of god? The virtues of religion? You take one man as example, and ignore the hundreds of others who were persecuted, tortured and killed for their work. How typical.
To say that astrology stems from religion because it was used for seafaring, is -utter- nonsense.
Here, let me give you a bigger list.
http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Read it and explain me the virtues of your religions again. The part on the middle ages is especially good. You should be deeply ashamed to herald the "virtues" of this belief, thereby spitting on all the graves of the thousands of innocent people burnt, exploited and tortured.
Cherzra:
If you think thats the whole story, you haven't read enough history.
Galileo in particular, who refered to the Pope, in his manifesto, as "Pope Simpleton," presented his theory as fact (which he promised the Church he would not do), and failed to give any evidence for his claims.
No wonder the Church was pissed.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
To say that astrology stems from religion because it was used for seafaring, is -utter- nonsense.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I said that astrology stems from religion and was used for seafaring.
Don't believe me? What do you think the signs of the zodiac, and the other constelations, are?
A method of determining latitude.
A method of determining direction.
You asked for an example of something that religion has contributed.
I gave you several.
Now you want it to be greater than this other list, all of which deal specifically with one religion and mainly with one Church within that religion.
Oh please Cherzra. Thats raising the bar after the goal has been met.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
If you think thats the whole story, you haven't read enough history.
Galileo in particular, who refered to the Pope, in his manifesto, as "Pope Simpleton," presented his theory as fact (which he promised the Church he would not do), and failed to give any evidence for his claims.
No wonder the Church was pissed.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
To say that astrology stems from religion because it was used for seafaring, is -utter- nonsense.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I said that astrology stems from religion and was used for seafaring.
Don't believe me? What do you think the signs of the zodiac, and the other constelations, are?
A method of determining latitude.
A method of determining direction.
You asked for an example of something that religion has contributed.
I gave you several.
Now you want it to be greater than this other list, all of which deal specifically with one religion and mainly with one Church within that religion.
Oh please Cherzra. Thats raising the bar after the goal has been met.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Oh, I see. As a scientist, if I present a theory and don't fully back it up, it is the church's good right to torture and lock me up forever?
You said "no wonder the church was pissed" - in other words, you fully agree. How sickening.
Of course, I realize you wouldn't answer the main point mentioned, which was that religion has brought nothing but pain, repression and torture. Of course just hide behind empty words again: "that's raising the bar after the goal has been met". I see - it's inconvenient to answer this painful point, so you just ignore it! Maybe you should try to be a politician, in every one of your posts you write a whole lot of nothing just to avoid having to answer any issues.
Shame on your for condoning the torture and pain of millions in the name of your religion. Zealot.
http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
You said "no wonder the church was pissed" - in other words, you fully agree. How sickening.
Of course, I realize you wouldn't answer the main point mentioned, which was that religion has brought nothing but pain, repression and torture. Of course just hide behind empty words again: "that's raising the bar after the goal has been met". I see - it's inconvenient to answer this painful point, so you just ignore it! Maybe you should try to be a politician, in every one of your posts you write a whole lot of nothing just to avoid having to answer any issues.
Shame on your for condoning the torture and pain of millions in the name of your religion. Zealot.
http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Cherzra:
You are a fool.
1) I am not a Christian, haven't been for some time and I've *never* been a Roman Catholic. Why you seem to insist on blaming everything every Christian has done throughout history on me is well beyond my understanding.
2) I never stated that I condoned those actions, only that considering the nature of the Church at the time I hardly consider them surprising. I also find that it had much less to do with what he published and more how he published it.
3) I have addressed your "main point" several times. You just don't seem to be able to read it.
4) You have been moderated down, Score -1; Flamebait. This drops you below this users current threshold and all future posts will be ignored regardless of content.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
You are a fool.
1) I am not a Christian, haven't been for some time and I've *never* been a Roman Catholic. Why you seem to insist on blaming everything every Christian has done throughout history on me is well beyond my understanding.
2) I never stated that I condoned those actions, only that considering the nature of the Church at the time I hardly consider them surprising. I also find that it had much less to do with what he published and more how he published it.
3) I have addressed your "main point" several times. You just don't seem to be able to read it.
4) You have been moderated down, Score -1; Flamebait. This drops you below this users current threshold and all future posts will be ignored regardless of content.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
See now people, I am a fool.
The moment I adress the fact that this religion has brought nothing but pain, providing proof, Elseenas runs off and calls me a fool that is unworthy of his attention, ignoring it.
The truth hurts, doesn't it Elseenas. Run away then. Ignore the deaths of millions, keep believing that religion brings nothing but goodness. Keep believing you addressed all my points and that I am just too dumb to see it. You haughty, arrogant zealot. Pay me a visit someday.
The painful truth, too painful for Elseenas' eyes: http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Cherzra, proud of his many forefathers who gave their blood fighting people like Elseenas for the right to advance their mind.
The moment I adress the fact that this religion has brought nothing but pain, providing proof, Elseenas runs off and calls me a fool that is unworthy of his attention, ignoring it.
The truth hurts, doesn't it Elseenas. Run away then. Ignore the deaths of millions, keep believing that religion brings nothing but goodness. Keep believing you addressed all my points and that I am just too dumb to see it. You haughty, arrogant zealot. Pay me a visit someday.
The painful truth, too painful for Elseenas' eyes: http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Cherzra, proud of his many forefathers who gave their blood fighting people like Elseenas for the right to advance their mind.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>You have made several flippant remarks about all religions, its a question, albeit a bit poorly worded due to Cherzra's accusations.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No... I kind of like Buddhism.
<B>You have made several flippant remarks about all religions, its a question, albeit a bit poorly worded due to Cherzra's accusations.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No... I kind of like Buddhism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
How I wish you could all just go back to the middle ages. You could enjoy living on a flat world, burn witches, fatten your own pockets over the populace's back, keep everyone stupid, and persecute anyone who disagrees or wants to look beyond the length of their nose. Sickening zealot.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can say things like this yet still accuse those who choose to believe in a "greater power" close minded and mean? There's a lot of prejudice and hate spilling through in your words Cherzra, attributes you seem to want to attribute to those who follow a theology.
You adamantly deny the possiblity of something which cannot be proven or disproven, isn't that unscientific?
How I wish you could all just go back to the middle ages. You could enjoy living on a flat world, burn witches, fatten your own pockets over the populace's back, keep everyone stupid, and persecute anyone who disagrees or wants to look beyond the length of their nose. Sickening zealot.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can say things like this yet still accuse those who choose to believe in a "greater power" close minded and mean? There's a lot of prejudice and hate spilling through in your words Cherzra, attributes you seem to want to attribute to those who follow a theology.
You adamantly deny the possiblity of something which cannot be proven or disproven, isn't that unscientific?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>But this isn't true. Most often people's belief's are handed down to them by their parents or religious leaders (see above.) Do you think that the pilot who flew a plane into the WTC _chose_ to believe that would get him into heaven? No, that belief was forced down his throat during his childhood by religious leaders... or his parents, who'd had it shoved down their throat by religious leaders...
Sarvis</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh, however they experienced it, they still had to experience it, right? I never said it was always a positive experience.
<B>But this isn't true. Most often people's belief's are handed down to them by their parents or religious leaders (see above.) Do you think that the pilot who flew a plane into the WTC _chose_ to believe that would get him into heaven? No, that belief was forced down his throat during his childhood by religious leaders... or his parents, who'd had it shoved down their throat by religious leaders...
Sarvis</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh, however they experienced it, they still had to experience it, right? I never said it was always a positive experience.
Gee now I wonder why I call Enseenas' kind a blight on humanity.
Might it be because he keeps insisting that past brutalities never happened, and even if they did, he condones it (see above)? That millions suffered repression and pain because they 'deserved' it? That he just merrily goes on his way denying or condoning all this, picking out one or two historical figures to serve as an example why religion is good, while thousand upon thousand others died at the stake? That when faced with a horrendous list of crimes, he dismisses it as lies unworthy of his attention, like most of his kind, turning his head the other way? Gee, I wonder why sane people would call his kind self-serving hypocritical zealots. Truly a blight upon humanity.
http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Might it be because he keeps insisting that past brutalities never happened, and even if they did, he condones it (see above)? That millions suffered repression and pain because they 'deserved' it? That he just merrily goes on his way denying or condoning all this, picking out one or two historical figures to serve as an example why religion is good, while thousand upon thousand others died at the stake? That when faced with a horrendous list of crimes, he dismisses it as lies unworthy of his attention, like most of his kind, turning his head the other way? Gee, I wonder why sane people would call his kind self-serving hypocritical zealots. Truly a blight upon humanity.
http://www.antichrist.com.au/crimeline.html
Okay, I have to break the ignore to say 2 things.
1) I am not a he.
2) I have never said that any religion's history was stainless or that any of those "crimes" was falsified.
You keep putting words in my mouth, I'd ask that you stop it even if you are on ignore.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
1) I am not a he.
2) I have never said that any religion's history was stainless or that any of those "crimes" was falsified.
You keep putting words in my mouth, I'd ask that you stop it even if you are on ignore.
------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Elsee's right, Cherz. It was you who said "nothing" good "ever" came out of religion. You're accusing a lot of people who don't believe the way the fanatics and zealots did. I am not a Christian, but I have known a lot of Christians in my personal life who only contributed good things to the lives of those around them, and they did it in the name of a belief that told them as good Christians they were to lead good and kind lives. I've always despised the nuts on TV, I grew up in Tulsa, the land of Oral Roberts, and I'd rather see his university burn to the ground than have him continue to preach the crap he spouts.
Two people can read the same words, and get completely different meanings out of them. There are some good things that have come from some religious people, just as there are lots of bad things that have happened in the name of religion. It is not the religion, it is the mindset of the human being which causes the misery perpetrated in the name of religion.
Two people can read the same words, and get completely different meanings out of them. There are some good things that have come from some religious people, just as there are lots of bad things that have happened in the name of religion. It is not the religion, it is the mindset of the human being which causes the misery perpetrated in the name of religion.
-
Eilorn
- Sojourner
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Salt Lake City,UT,USA 84116
- Contact:
Here's something I've been thinking on and off again for sometime, and have finally articulated it in response to this discussion. It doesn't have everything that I've been thinking of, as I don't know how to fit everything into this framework, so, consider it a work in progress (Note: this had indentation for better readability, but, re-editing it doesn't seem to get the indentation I want 
):
Assumption:
There is a Creator(I'll use He/Him/His as pronouns for convenience, use
search and replace if this offends you) of the universe. (Forget about trying
to define omnipotence, omniscience... let's just assume that anyone powerful
enough to create a universe has got what it takes to run one.)
Assumption:
There are laws/rules/whatever that are set in place to regulate the universe.
They are consistent, they are permanent. They are not just laws governing
the physical, but laws governing the spiritual(mental, whatever). (We may not
know the laws, we may not agree with the laws, they function independently
of our knowledge, wants, or desires. Also, what we may think are immutable,
universal laws may be only expressions of local conditions, subsets of greater
laws.)
Definition:
Knowledge is knowing the way things are, were, or will be. Knowledge is
not belief: believing you can fly by flapping your arms won't keep you
from splatting when jumping off a cliff. Knowledge can help you build
a parachute. Believing in true things allows you to act on them.
Question
Either He cares about the fate of the universe or He doesn't.
Assumption:
Caring means that He prefers that self-aware beings maximize happiness.
Definition:
Person/People: self-aware being/s
He doesn't: no difference from scientific universe.
He does:
Assumption:
Preferring to maximize happiness means that He will help People maximize happiness.
Question:
Either He will help People maximize happiness or He won't.
He doesn't: ?
He does:
Assumption:
Happiness is only meaningful in presense of choice: a robot cannot be
said to be happy/unhappy when it's entire repertoire of action is fixed.
Happiness/unhappiness correlates with exercise of free agency.
Definition:
Happiness should not be confused with pleasure, one is spiritual(mental,whatever)
the other is physical; one can be happy while suffering from the pain of cancer,
one can be unhappy in the midst of wealth.
Assumption:
Making use of free agency is enhanced by knowledge of consequences of
choices.
Assumption:
Maximal happiness will depend on maximal time to experience it.
Question:
Either He will help People exercise free agency by disbursing knowledge
or He won't.
He won't: Hey! I'm not responsible for my actions, I didn't know any better.
He will:
Definition:
Good: Helping another Person increase in happiness.
Evil: Diminishing another Person's happiness or, preventing
them from increasing their happiness.
Observation:
You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make him drink.
Just because you tell someone the truth, it doesn't mean that
they will use that truth.
Assumption:
Knowledge is disbursed through a single point of contact,
to minimize possible confusion.
Question:
Either he will confirm the truth of disbursed knowledge or he won't.
He won't: How was I to know that the fellow I was following made all that stuff up?
How was I to know that what that other fellow said was true?
He will: All you have to do is find the right question and the right way to ask.
[This message has been edited by Eilorn (edited 03-05-2002).]
):Assumption:
There is a Creator(I'll use He/Him/His as pronouns for convenience, use
search and replace if this offends you) of the universe. (Forget about trying
to define omnipotence, omniscience... let's just assume that anyone powerful
enough to create a universe has got what it takes to run one.)
Assumption:
There are laws/rules/whatever that are set in place to regulate the universe.
They are consistent, they are permanent. They are not just laws governing
the physical, but laws governing the spiritual(mental, whatever). (We may not
know the laws, we may not agree with the laws, they function independently
of our knowledge, wants, or desires. Also, what we may think are immutable,
universal laws may be only expressions of local conditions, subsets of greater
laws.)
Definition:
Knowledge is knowing the way things are, were, or will be. Knowledge is
not belief: believing you can fly by flapping your arms won't keep you
from splatting when jumping off a cliff. Knowledge can help you build
a parachute. Believing in true things allows you to act on them.
Question
Either He cares about the fate of the universe or He doesn't.
Assumption:
Caring means that He prefers that self-aware beings maximize happiness.
Definition:
Person/People: self-aware being/s
He doesn't: no difference from scientific universe.
He does:
Assumption:
Preferring to maximize happiness means that He will help People maximize happiness.
Question:
Either He will help People maximize happiness or He won't.
He doesn't: ?
He does:
Assumption:
Happiness is only meaningful in presense of choice: a robot cannot be
said to be happy/unhappy when it's entire repertoire of action is fixed.
Happiness/unhappiness correlates with exercise of free agency.
Definition:
Happiness should not be confused with pleasure, one is spiritual(mental,whatever)
the other is physical; one can be happy while suffering from the pain of cancer,
one can be unhappy in the midst of wealth.
Assumption:
Making use of free agency is enhanced by knowledge of consequences of
choices.
Assumption:
Maximal happiness will depend on maximal time to experience it.
Question:
Either He will help People exercise free agency by disbursing knowledge
or He won't.
He won't: Hey! I'm not responsible for my actions, I didn't know any better.
He will:
Definition:
Good: Helping another Person increase in happiness.
Evil: Diminishing another Person's happiness or, preventing
them from increasing their happiness.
Observation:
You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make him drink.
Just because you tell someone the truth, it doesn't mean that
they will use that truth.
Assumption:
Knowledge is disbursed through a single point of contact,
to minimize possible confusion.
Question:
Either he will confirm the truth of disbursed knowledge or he won't.
He won't: How was I to know that the fellow I was following made all that stuff up?
How was I to know that what that other fellow said was true?
He will: All you have to do is find the right question and the right way to ask.
[This message has been edited by Eilorn (edited 03-05-2002).]
Since almost everyone posting here is angry and/or upset, let me restate my last post: Arguing religion and/or spirituality is the equivalent of 2 + 4 = purple.
Spirituality is esoteric. One is inclined to feel spiritual, or one is not. No amount of amiable discussion or heated argument can change a person's mind in these matters, whether they be theist or atheist.
As entertaining as all this debate might be, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? No one will change their point of view because someone's argument posted here was *so* convincing (including my own).
Religion itself does not cause death or suffering. It is only the inability of people, whether they be theist or atheist, to accept and welcome differences that causes evil.
Spirituality is esoteric. One is inclined to feel spiritual, or one is not. No amount of amiable discussion or heated argument can change a person's mind in these matters, whether they be theist or atheist.
As entertaining as all this debate might be, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish? No one will change their point of view because someone's argument posted here was *so* convincing (including my own).
Religion itself does not cause death or suffering. It is only the inability of people, whether they be theist or atheist, to accept and welcome differences that causes evil.
They say you should never talk about two things ..
Religion and politics ...
I agree...
We had had two very angry debates on the BBS .. one was about politics .. one about religion ..
Above all .. persecution blows ... by this i mean .. we all persecute people in one way or other .. whether we persecute the scholar for his/her beliefs .. or the religious for his/her beliefs
why can't we all just get along :P .. make love not war .. rofl
Isn't it GREAT tho that we can have these choices to debate??
humanity is awesome
and i will freely admit i wish i'd gone to college so i could keep up with half this stuff .. you all blow me away!!!
[This message has been edited by Karikhan (edited 03-05-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Karikhan (edited 03-05-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Karikhan (edited 03-05-2002).]
Religion and politics ...
I agree...
We had had two very angry debates on the BBS .. one was about politics .. one about religion ..
Above all .. persecution blows ... by this i mean .. we all persecute people in one way or other .. whether we persecute the scholar for his/her beliefs .. or the religious for his/her beliefs
why can't we all just get along :P .. make love not war .. rofl
Isn't it GREAT tho that we can have these choices to debate??
humanity is awesome
and i will freely admit i wish i'd gone to college so i could keep up with half this stuff .. you all blow me away!!!
[This message has been edited by Karikhan (edited 03-05-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Karikhan (edited 03-05-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Karikhan (edited 03-05-2002).]
Elseenas,
I am not as well versed in math as I'd like to be, but are there any numerical systems, even theoretical ones, or dimentional configuration that would cause it to not ring true?
I am just curious, as we spent several hours trying to think of one, and I don't have the math to know if there would be any possible inconsistency, or at this hour of the morning to even fully comprehend the ramifications of the formula you mentioned.
Thank you in advance for clarification.
Toplack
I am not as well versed in math as I'd like to be, but are there any numerical systems, even theoretical ones, or dimentional configuration that would cause it to not ring true?
I am just curious, as we spent several hours trying to think of one, and I don't have the math to know if there would be any possible inconsistency, or at this hour of the morning to even fully comprehend the ramifications of the formula you mentioned.
Thank you in advance for clarification.
Toplack
Yaya knows nothing! I am never wrong!
My beef with religion is not that IT causes pain and suffering, but the fact that some people have the audacity to think that they can inturpret something that is in part thousands of years old. And in that inturpretation, lead people based on their assumed inturpretations. So yeah, in a way you can say religion is the reason for what happend during the crusades/inquisitions/which hunts etc, just like you can say it was the people that did it. Does it not say int the bible that God himself destroyed entire civilizations? Rofl, not that I back up the church or anything, but what the hell are you supposed to make of this?! Obviously God likes to kill things just as much as he likes to create. So, of coarse, retarded humans are going to see this as, "well, he didnt like these people, so he killed them...we are just doing his work for him!"...I say burn the damn bible and hold your beliefs. It isn't impossible to be spiritual w/o a book and its "teachings"...You can have morals/ethics w/o religion very easily (contrary to some crazy philosophers).
I find it rather silly to go some place just to hear somebody tell me what somebody was talking about thousands of years ago...on top of this, he doesn't actually "know". So, in fact, you are just allowing yourself to be "told" what is right and wrong by somebody that in all actuality doesnt even know themselves. That doesn't make much sense to me...Spirituality is a wonderful thing, religion is some falable human or human's personal inturpretation of spirituality and laws there of.
So, I would have to agree mostly with chez on this one guys...he takes it a bit far, but is closer than the ones backing religion.
One last observation/opinion...Since we humans are prone to numerous mistakes, humans wrote the bible, koran, etc..., and humans there after inturpret the bible, koran, etc..., how can so many people actually put so much stock into it? Doesn't this seem a bit idealogical and ignorant?!
Kifle
My beef with religion is not that IT causes pain and suffering, but the fact that some people have the audacity to think that they can inturpret something that is in part thousands of years old. And in that inturpretation, lead people based on their assumed inturpretations. So yeah, in a way you can say religion is the reason for what happend during the crusades/inquisitions/which hunts etc, just like you can say it was the people that did it. Does it not say int the bible that God himself destroyed entire civilizations? Rofl, not that I back up the church or anything, but what the hell are you supposed to make of this?! Obviously God likes to kill things just as much as he likes to create. So, of coarse, retarded humans are going to see this as, "well, he didnt like these people, so he killed them...we are just doing his work for him!"...I say burn the damn bible and hold your beliefs. It isn't impossible to be spiritual w/o a book and its "teachings"...You can have morals/ethics w/o religion very easily (contrary to some crazy philosophers).
I find it rather silly to go some place just to hear somebody tell me what somebody was talking about thousands of years ago...on top of this, he doesn't actually "know". So, in fact, you are just allowing yourself to be "told" what is right and wrong by somebody that in all actuality doesnt even know themselves. That doesn't make much sense to me...Spirituality is a wonderful thing, religion is some falable human or human's personal inturpretation of spirituality and laws there of.
So, I would have to agree mostly with chez on this one guys...he takes it a bit far, but is closer than the ones backing religion.
One last observation/opinion...Since we humans are prone to numerous mistakes, humans wrote the bible, koran, etc..., and humans there after inturpret the bible, koran, etc..., how can so many people actually put so much stock into it? Doesn't this seem a bit idealogical and ignorant?!
Kifle
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests