Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Religious Discussion / Re: Letter about Islam/Muslims
« Last post by nogodsforme on Today at 10:41:41 AM »
It may not be just two options: 1) the "wasted peaceful majority" must either fix the problem no matter what it takes, or 2) people must like things the way they are. It could also be that it is not worth it to do what it takes to fix the problem. Maybe they have tried to change things and got punished for it too many times. So they give up, give in, or leave.

In the case of people in the Middle East, wasted peaceful majority has many, many times, voted, organized, protested and done other things to fix their problems. And they have suffered incredibly at the hands of dictators and the superpowers of the world because of their effrontery.

How dare the people in Iran decide to choose their own government and take control of their oil in 1953? The US and the British helped to kick out their democratically elected leader and put in a brutal secular dictator. They suffered under him and then organized and kicked him out. They ended up with another brutal dictator, this time a religious one. Not everyone wanted that, but at least he got the US out of their business and got control of their oil again.

To punish them, we helped Saddam Hussein bomb the daylights out of them and use poison gas on them for oh, about 8 years. They have not forgotten that. I am sure at least a few people there did think 9/11 (3000 dead, many more injured, lots of destruction) was just a tiny bit of payback for the million men, women and kids we helped to kill in Iran. Not pretty.

Periodically, people organize and protest, even at great cost. And, if it endangers our comfort and money, we don't help them. In fact, we often make things much worse for them. It seems that we would rather they have a horrible dictator who does what we want than for them to have reasonable leaders who don't do what we want. Otherwise, why do we keep helping the horrible dictators, and do our best to get rid of the reasonable leaders?

Life is a series of trade-offs. And sometimes, it does not seem to matter what the "wasted peaceful majority" wants. The terrorist groups don't care. And the people supposedly on the side of the good guys don't care either. :P
12
General Religious Discussion / Re: puffdaddy and King_me discuss god
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 10:37:34 AM »
Jdawg there will not be sin in heaven.  The reason this world has to play out is so sin will be proved wrong therefore never to appear again.

Just for clarity -

You're saying that it is currently unknown whether or not sin is wrong?  Is that what this is?  Is god trying to prove to himself that, yeah, sin is bad?
13
General Religious Discussion / Re: The definition of God
« Last post by screwtape on Today at 10:30:04 AM »
Now that I have established that MOST of you would reject any definition, even a scientific one

I do not find it to be a scientific definition.  It is a science-ish one.  It sounds truthy, but it is ambiguous.  It uses words that scientists use, but the context is off, rendering the words kind of meaningless.  By the end of your definition, I was confused and had no idea what it meant.

To me it sounds like the kind of thing I would hear from Oprah or Eckhart Tolle, each of whom is nearly infinitely full of shit.

The problem is, I think, trying to define something first and then going on a snipe hunt to find it.  I go into that in more detail here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26621.msg609982.html#msg609982


14
General Religious Discussion / Re: The definition of God
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 10:25:59 AM »
I have taken this description from the book Who’s Afraid of Schrodinger’s Cat? by Ian Marshall and Danah Zohar (p42) as identified by jdawg. I did NOT intend to be secretive or misleading about that - I knew someone would copy+paste and determine that.

Jdawg did that for us:
Quote
his appears to be an adaptation from Who's Afraid of Schrödinger's Cat?, which appears to be a lay-targeted summary of what was, at the time, fairly new stuff in the science of physics - specifically, quantum mechanics.  As it looks to be written in 1998, I suspect some of the information contained therein is outdated, but nonetheless it does look interesting.
 

I've not read it either, :)
The description is:

If we can grasp the fact that potentiality is a second domain of existence, and thus that possibilities are to some extent real entities, we can begin to understand the nature of the quantum vacuum and its relationship to daily existence. The vacuum . . . is the underlying, lowest-energy state of all, the source of everything that is. The vacuum does not, however, “ex-ist” [sic] in the strict Latin meaning of the word, which has the connotation “to stand out.” We cannot see, touch, or measure the vacuum. It is a sea of pure potentiality, a kind of preexistence whose excitation gives rise to existence. Thus potentiality is the source of existence, while existence itself is a plethora of actualities or “manifestations.”
Who’s Afraid of Schrodinger’s Cat? by Ian Marshall and Danah Zohar (p42)

My description offered basically replaced quantum vacuum with God, plus a few pronoun changes and such to make it read sensibly. (Read it again on page 1 if you must)
Unless the word 'god' and the phrase 'quantum vacuum' are actually interchangeable, your experiment here is doomed to failure.  As per Mrjason:

"An apple is the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh. Many varieties have been developed as dessert or cooking fruit or for making cider."

"A MiG-105  is the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh. Many varieties have been developed as dessert or cooking fruit or for making cider."

Thoughtless and/or arbitrary word substitution accomplishes nothing useful.

Quote
My plan was to take a SCIENTIFIC definition of a complex scientific idea (the quantum vacuum) that can NOT be directly observed, but only its effects can and then test in this community whether you are open to the IDEA that defining the complexity of God is extraordinarily difficult.

I will provide my own ‘definition’ later, but because of what I learned (below) I know that you won’t accept my definition – but it will be MAINLY because you are in principle against the idea and don’t judge the actual idea on its merits.
And that plan was doomed to failure, because took a complex idea and arbitrarily applied a description of that idea to a different complex idea.  We did judge the actual idea on its merits - and found it lacking.

Quote
The secondary benefit was, with the exception of a handful of people, the definition /description was rejected outright.
It was rejected outright because it didn't make sense.

You took a description of x, and then just replaced instances of the word x with word yMore often than not, especially when the words are unrelated, that will end up sounding a lot like jibberish.

...

Did you have any thoughts regarding:
As best as you can, clearly express in your own words what the word 'potentiality' means.
I assume you'll be able to do this, as you found it fit to replace the phrase 'the quantum vacuum' with 'god', and this implies that you had some sense of what 'potentiality' meant in both the author's intended context and your new context.
15
General Religious Discussion / Re: The definition of God
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 10:21:18 AM »
Your general argument seems to be "prove God exists".  Well prove he does not.  The Bible is the only book in the history of history that events happen that it says will happen. Every prophecy has come true.  Is that just pure luck from a fictional book?

No its not and this will all be over soon so if you have a question that's keeping you from seeking god ask it now and I can give an answer without hesitation

OK, then, if what you say is so, then let's test it to see. Let's read Ezekiel 29:8-12[1]
Quote
[/8  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee.
 
9  And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD.
 ¶ Because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it,
 
10  behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Sy-e'ne even unto the border of Ethiopia.
 
11  No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
 
12  And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
 
13  ¶ Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered:

OK, then, please tell me when the 40 years was that Egpyt was so lacking in people that "No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years." So far as I know Egypt has never not been occupied. Note that for this prophecy to be fulfilled there has to have been 40 years of no people and then the Egyptians have to have been brought back. Sounds straightforward to fix to me. 
 1. Quoted from here 
16
HI dennis.  Thanks for coming back and responding to this thread.


Lets consider the logic:

If there is no Creator then there is no meaning.

1. That's not actually logic.  It is a statement.  It may be true or it may not.  You have not established either way.  You just seem to assume it is true axiomatically without doing any of the heavy lifting.  Maybe that is just badly worded and does not articulate what you mean.  But there it is.

2. I agree.  If there is no creator then there is no meaning.  However, even if there is a creator, there is still no meaning.   

3. You seem to be trying to get to the idea that there is only meaning if and only if there is a creator to provide it.  To unpack that a little further, that would be to say our lives are only meaningful if some being far more powerful than us dictates meaning to us.

Well, I don't see how that is true.  What if this more powerful being changes what we are supposed to see as meaningful?  Meaning, then, is still subjective.  If it were objective, then even this being would not be able to change it.  It is the exact same thing with morals.  You are just saying that you need (want?) someone else to dictate it to you.  Heck, I could do that for you, if you want.  I would probably give you better meaning (and morals) than an iron age canaanite god.  I'm more current. 

4. I think we should probably talk about the what is meant by "meaning" and whether it is actually important.  What exactly do you mean when you say meaning?

But there can't be an object source of meaning

like a Wellspring of Meaning?  A Font of Meaning?  Or the famous Fountain of Meaning, which Ponce de Leon actually found, but ignorned and lost since he was looking for the Fountain of Youth.

- only the above-mentioned subjective one.

Do you mean the Iron Age Canaanite god?

But if you are just a bundle of quarks firing away randomly then that claimed meaning must also be by nature 'random'.

You are making a bunch of ugly assmuptions in order to reach a desired conclusion. 

or do you want a life that has an objective purpose?

I don't get theists' hard-on for objective abstracts.  Truely, I do not.  Objective purposes.  Objective morals.  Objective table manners.  It's like, you need to be spoon fed everything.  Everything needs to be carved in granite, for all time.  You cannot deal with flexibility of any sort.  That sort of trait may have been useful in the Iron Age, but nowadays, that shit has got to be eliminated from the gene pool.

Many (not all) people reject that purpose or meaning because it cramps their lifestyle (even if they claim different reasons for rejecting it).

Kindly provide sources for this.  It sounds to me like a bigoted opinion and not a fact.  But if I am wrong, I would like to know.  So, if you could, please show how you know this is true.

17
General Religious Discussion / Re: The definition of God
« Last post by ParkingPlaces on Today at 10:02:14 AM »
Dennis

You seem desperate to have all the answers. Here you are, trying to meld your version of religion with your version of physics, presumably because you hope you'll understand everything sometime between now and whenever you die.

I look at the world (universe, infinity, whatever) a bit differently. Yes, I like answers, or at least plausible explanations, whenever they are available, but I don't imagine for a second that we humans will ever understand everything, and I certainly don't expect our current understandings, of the sciences or anything else, to be perfect, or even darned close. Limited by both brain power and our current knowledge base, we sort of have to accept that what we know is incomplete, and will be for some time to come. Perhaps forever.

Hence I don't fret over beginnings and endings or the stuff in-between. I'm curious, yes. I love reading about the various scientific discoveries we humans make. I appreciate all the effort going in to finding answers, however tentative, however incomplete they might be. And in the process, I dismiss religion altogether, recognizing it as a historical necessity, something that people who knew far less used to explain far more than they needed to explain. I recognize religion as an effort to give humans a story, a continuity, and to give us a way to think we had/have some control.

But many of us have outgrown that naïve POV. We look at religion and recognize that the fact that almost all religious stories happened long ago (I'm not up to date on scientology or the cult that offed itself when Haley's comet showed up, so there may be a few exceptions), and they happened long ago because no religion can currently match the tales provided in books like the bible. Of course the Red Sea parted thousands of years ago. That story could never be current because we have twitter and stuff. The same goes for everything from eden to jesus.

Every culture has its myths. Stories of Perseus and the trickster coyote and turtles all the way down are myths that we all recognize. Sadly, the religious never seem to recognize that their own story is also a myth. They have a way of reading their own as truth. And hassling the crap out of people who don't agree.

Carry on though. Just don't be so frickin' surprised that not everybody agrees with your desperate story line about reality. Yours has to match ours or it won't work. And it doesn't. At least not around here.

18
General Religious Discussion / Re: The definition of God
« Last post by ParkingPlaces on Today at 09:42:27 AM »
I was pretty much separated from everything for either all of backwards eternity, or 13.7 billion years, or 6,000 years if the bible is to be taken literally, before I was born, and it didn't seem to bother me a bit. I suffered no psychological trauma or anything. So after I kick the bucket, I suspect it will be the same as it was before I was born, and that's fine with me.

If there is a god, I've been separated from him for over 50 years and things have been pretty nice. So that doesn't count as much of a threat in real life either.

Personally, I can see no reason to run around being afraid of dying when I have no choice in the matter, physically. And if your version of the biblical promise is true, eternity in heaven or no existence at all, I've already made the right choice. How anyone defines eternal life as a good thing I'll never know. Living is valuable because it is a precious, short-lived commodity. An eternal existence would offer nothing but a whole crapload of tomorrows, and what fun would that be.
19
Introductions / Re: Hello Everyone
« Last post by screwtape on Today at 09:26:42 AM »
debate with puffdaddy was split and located yonder:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27605.0.html

Also, welcome King_me.
20
God doesn't show Himself because He doesn't have to prove Himself to you.

You have to prove yourself to Him!
I read that a lot of times. Why would it be that way?

Because "God" is insecure like the mere mortals who project themselves as god.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10