 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> OK, Darren I understand you beliefs and POVs better now, I assumed too
>> much again but you kinda showed yourself like an Atheist on previous
>> posts so I assumed you were an Atheist like Patrick.
>
> I *am* an atheist. Perhaps not quite like Patrick, but I am an atheist.
> What gives you the impression I'm not?>
Your spirituality... hence I don't think you are an Atheist per se, at
least not a classical one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Again, a popular press article with no actual science described.
> Given that the expected number of people died (namely, 4), what's the
> statistical likelyhood that the four that died were people not prayed for?
>
> Even given that, what makes you think it's supernatural? Arguing that
> prayer leads to healing is like arguing that evolution doesn't explain
> some feature found in animals - in neither case is the existence of God
> implied.
>
nor denied, and as I write before, this probably will never be proved or
discarded. I just google this for you, I hadn't even read them, forgot
to say that.
That said, I believe that even can do supernatural achievements on
extreme situations, as I wrote before, I don't think is totally our
merit but a little help from God. Think about one of those extreme
situations I described... you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
you can grasp? I imagine the mother saying to God: "OK God, you better
give me a hand here because I'm going to rescue mu child or die
trying...". On moments like that you have no doubts, you belief what you
have secured as worth believe/have faith in. Of course I could be
mistaken, but if I were the mother I'd say those words with all the
conviction and faith I could get and try to do what she did, no room for
rationality, just pure love for my child., but that's me...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 15-Jan-09 2:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> In Short, I'm searching the truth... about God... that implicitly
>> tells me how to follow him (most Religions fail at this purpose,
>> ironically).
>
> Well, I am also searching but being an atheist, I look via a different
> path.
I and wish you the best of lucks my friend. I'll pray for you...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A little evolution fact:
You probably know this but I wanted yo share it with you.
I recently(a few weeks ago) learned that we are in fact evolved monkeys
and there is now genetic prove: 2 chromosomes has joined and get
identified with what ends, aside from that the rest of our chromosomes
are identical to the monkeys'.
Interesting how we evolved, and saying we don't is being biased
blindsided toward a religion, there is a ton of documentary videos on TV
I've seen (and I'm sure is only a small number) where there is more than
just probable cause of evolution from one spices into another, in some
cases not definitive evidence in others not enough but you feel there
must be some kind of logical connection, because Nature simply works
that way: Biology in bio-/chemistry, chemistry in atomic physics, so
evolution is a fact of the universe, fascinating...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Your spirituality... hence I don't think you are an Atheist per se, at
> least not a classical one.
A classical atheist is one who doesn't believe in gods. Which I don't.
There's no need to call me a theist, as theists don't have an exclusive on
irrationality.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> nor denied, and as I write before, this probably will never be proved or
> discarded.
I think it has already been proved.
> I just google this for you, I hadn't even read them, forgot
> to say that.
None of them said what you think they said.
> That said, I believe that even can do supernatural achievements on
> extreme situations,
I don't think you know what the word "supernatural" means, either. :-)
> Think about one of those extreme
> situations I described... you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
> you can grasp?
Uh, no. I'd look for a solution that's actually likely to work.
If you got in a situation, would you call out to Thor to grant you the
Strength of his Mighty Hammer? Would you cry out for Captain Kirk to beam
up the car that has your loved one pinned? When you understand why you
wouldn't do either of those, you'll understand why even in an emergency I
wouldn't call out to JHVH for help, or whichever one it is you're currently
worshiping.
> I imagine the mother saying to God: "OK God, you better
> give me a hand here because I'm going to rescue mu child or die
> trying...".
I'm not sure why you think an atheist wouldn't just start after the
"because" in that sentence.
> no room for rationality, just pure love for my child., but that's me...
Your tone makes it sound like "an atheist wouldn't even try" or something. I
think an atheist would also most likely try to lift the car, unless there
was something likely to be more effective than prayer around, like a long
pole and a big rock nearby, say. :-) As I said, you don't have to be a
theist to be irrational. Panic is actually a survival trait, for one thing.
("Nothing reasonable is going to save me. Hence, I will try something
unreasonable, and I can't lose.")
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> A little evolution fact:
> You probably know this but I wanted yo share it with you.
Thank you.
> I recently(a few weeks ago) learned that we are in fact evolved monkeys
Technically, more like monkeys (apes, actually) and humans came from the
same parent species, but I know what you mean.
> and there is now genetic prove: 2 chromosomes has joined and get
> identified with what ends, aside from that the rest of our chromosomes
> are identical to the monkeys'.
Close enough. Not identical, but a human man has more genes in common with a
monkey male than with a human female, due to the Y chromosome. It's pretty
darn close.
> Interesting how we evolved, and saying we don't is being biased
> blindsided toward a religion, there is a ton of documentary videos on TV
> I've seen (and I'm sure is only a small number) where there is more than
> just probable cause of evolution from one spices into another, in some
> cases not definitive evidence in others not enough but you feel there
> must be some kind of logical connection, because Nature simply works
> that way: Biology in bio-/chemistry, chemistry in atomic physics, so
> evolution is a fact of the universe, fascinating...
Yep. For a long time, I thought that the stuff about evolution was "iffy",
poorly argued, etc. When I learned what some of the actual evidence is,
like what you're saying there, rather than the "just so" stories that often
get made up about evolution, it becomes much more convincing.
The whole archive of the whole mess is at talkorigins.org. It used to be a
news group, until the web killed newsgroups. Most any argument you can
imagine that religion puts forward to discredit evolution is in there.
Now they've just recently made an RNA in the laboratory that will replicate
itself indefinitely.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php
So they're working on disproving the whole "maybe evolution, but you need
God to create life in the first place" argument.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Think about one of those extreme situations I described...
> you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
> you can grasp?
By the way, this is something I've always been curious about.
Wouldn't it be easier for God to just prevent the child from winding up
underneath the car than to grant the mother unusual strength to pick the car
up? I mean, why is it that everyone getting out of the crashed plane alive
is a miracle, but the plane crashing from a freak series of events isn't a
miracle? Why isn't the mother just as likely to be pissed at God for
endangering her child as she is to ask for help?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 16-Jan-09 6:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> So, yes, there is a "value" that come with it, which you don't have
>>>> without it.
>>>
>>> I disagree that spirituality without a personal sky daddy is
>>> necessarily better than a spirituality with a personal sky daddy.
>>>
>> Depends, I suppose, on your definition of "better". Some people seem
>> to be virtually "incapable" of functioning as rational human beings
>> without a god. Frankly, some of those people scare the hell out of
>> me, since I have either seen them in moments when they questioned it,
>> or have been told by them what they "imagine" they could do, if they
>> suddenly found they didn't have a god looking over them. For those
>> people.. having such a "spirituality" that is derived from the magic
>> sky faerie, is better then without it.
>>
>> Then there are the others, who use belief in the forgiveness, mandates
>> from, communication with, and self selected quote mining of his
>> supposed words, to justify doing all the things that the former group
>> would do, but **as a result** of having the belief. That category
>> would be better off if they had to deal with the cold hard truth that
>> there isn't anything out their that cares about every tiny little
>> thing they do, and they bloody well better start being nice to real
>> people on earth.
>>
>> That the majority fall some place between these two, with occasional,
>> and limited, wobbles in one or the other direction, based on their pet
>> peeves, doesn't at all, in my mind, suggest that the first group might
>> have been better off if introduced to moral thinking, instead of fear
>> based self control, and the later to the concept of humility, without,
>> in either case, resorting to what has, in one fashion or another,
>> helped manufacture their rather dangerous mental instabilities in the
>> first place.
>>
>> For both sets, a spirituality that sees the world for what it is, and
>> find awe in that, is far superior than one that sees it as all
>> corrupt, or all made for their own purposes, with only an imaginary
>> friend there to tell them "how" to use it, or what things to avoid doing.
>>
>> Note, the "spirituality" of those in the middle, while they often walk
>> a bit close to both lines at times, has "far" more in common with the
>> naturalist/humanist spirituality they deny believing in, than the
>> deity based one. So.. it might be argued that, if you examine
>> religious spirituality, in its purist and untainted form, it has
>> serious problems. ;)
>>
> I think you are missing at least one other 'pole' i.e. those that think
> they have a purpose in life. I have met a fairly large group of
> religious people that feel responsible for their neighbours and the
> earth in general. That is not because there is a God that is going to
> count every action when they die and will punish them if the score is
> negative. They really do have an internal motivation to do this. I also
> know a couple of atheists with the same drive, in fact almost the only
> thing that separates these two groups is that one believes in God and
> the other doesn't.
> If you leave out this group of spiritual people in your analysis you do
> the religious people unjustice. Note that nearly every new religious
> group starts here and only later on when people find that being a
> religious leader gives power over others dogmas start to develop. Note
> also that gnostic individuals and groups are almost by definition not
> following authority.
Actually, no, I didn't leave those people out. That is what "in between,
which has more to do with humanist/naturalist" means. Such people invent
there own "purpose" to one degree or another, and tend to see part of
their reason for being on this world one of making it better for
everyone else. The clear difference is the disconnect that ends up
leading some, as you point out, into thinking that promoting religion,
and all too often "inflexible" religion on people is the best means to
that goal. Some choose to just fight with words, some fight with
actions, some a bit of both, but, in the end, you can be standing side
by side with someone and 100% agree with them that "better education"
will improve the world, for example, and disagree completely on whether
or not a new church or a new play ground would be "better" for the local
children. The ones in the middle disagree on what some of us consider to
be important and serious details, but "in general" we tend to agree more
than 90% of the time, as long as religion isn't added to the equation,
on everything else.
And, I do not at all think that the first two groups in my analysis do
religion any injustice, or, sadly, religious people, any more than they
do themselves. As Madison once put it, "Experience witnesseth that
eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and
efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost
fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on
trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and
indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution."
This was recognized in his time, and yet, it "still" comes as some sort
of horrifying shock to people of faith 200 years later, when ever
someone points out that it is still, all too often, true, whenever any
significant numbers of people become members of any single denomination,
or even locally, in small ones. The only thing that differs in
magnitude. A small church has not, in most cases, sufficient numbers,
loud enough voices, or obnoxious enough prejudices, to greatly upset
more than those within their own reach, with a few exceptions, such as
the so called "Catholic League", and its incredibly inflated claims of
actual membership (by my estimate, even without donations of any kind,
he would have to have received about $3 from 'every' member he claims to
have, to match the amount of money he took in last year. This is rather
odd, given that he has taken in millions in donations.. So, either he is
lying about the donations, or he is lying about how many "paying"
members he has). Large organizations, on the other hand, have there
fingers so deep in everything, its often hard to tell where those
fingers are, until someone admits to having followed the advise of, or
professes great admirations for, some mega-televangelist or
super-church, and they try to make "everything" happen the way they want.
I am, frankly, rather happy that the vast majority, by nature of their
"faith", opt not to apply themselves to real methods of making such
things happen, or we would be overrun already, but that the vast
majority apply themselves to the laughable method of "praying" that it
will happen, or that some tiny number of loud mouths, who push the
agendas, will manage to transfix and baffle intelligent people long
enough to have their goals come to pass, instead of laughing in their
faces, or telling them to get lost.
But, seriously. Most people are not a problem, even if they are
believers. Enough of their world is "still" grounded in the real concern
that they have to "earn" money, instead of praying for it, and a myriad
of other inconvenient material complications, that they are unwilling to
dive into the shallow end of the pool, even "when" their church leaders
insist on continually repainting the sign to say, "Depth = infinite".
The real problem is those in the other categories, and the frustrating
tendency of too many in the middle of siding with someone because they
put a cross on their website, instead of the new "scarlet A", that some
atheists are beginning to use (or anything else suggesting they don't
believe in the "magic").
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I don't know if it is where I live or who my friends and acquaintances
> are but in my experience the group that tries to express their believe
> by living as an example of what faith can do to a person is so large
> that you can not neglect them. The group that you refer to is more
> visible as a group, but I are less likely to meet them as they tend to
> stick together. The group I mean is not so recognizable as they are
> friendly people and you have to know them better to understand what rôle
> faith plays in how they interact with other people. Sometimes it may
> turn out that that faith happens to be atheism, but we were not talking
> about those.
>
Hmm. Just to be clear here, what "faith" are you talking about with
atheism? Last I checked the only "faith" involved there was the same
ones those who have "faiths" apply all the time, like, "I have faith
that the laws of physics will let my car start in the morning, not turn
me into a grapefruit." Sorry to be picky here, but since we are,
supposedly trying to make "clear" distinctions about things talked
about, and people, it might be useful what "faith" you seem to think an
atheist has that makes it the "same" as a religion...
That said, your comment does re-bring up a point that Saul danced around
a bit. Since he won't read the blog of an atheist, I will post a
paraphrase of his statement on "compassion", as it was applied to a case
of a family that had a child diagnosed with hydrocephalus. The doctors
stated that she would either be still born, or only live a short time.
The chaplain's statements about the matter:
1. Thumbs up to the christians that chose to follow their own creed of
loving others.
2. The two who they helped might not have made it without such help and
compassionate people with them.
3. Not impressed with the god in the story, who seemed to be unable to
do anything at all that the doctors didn't already predict.
4. "Four, I wish that the friendships that abound in this story would
have been accomplished without the framework of religion to constrain
them. This story speaks poignantly of both the power and the depth of
human empathy and compassion. Danny, Danielle and Bobbi didn’t need a
deity; they needed other people. The Christians didn’t need a deity;
they had tremendous strength and love within themselves. Danny,
Danielle, the pastor and all of the church people have sold themselves
short. Instead of recognizing their own virtue, they believe that the
source of all their goodness is a small god who performs pitifully small
miracles. That’s almost as tragic as the death of baby Bobbi."
Mind, the first poster on the reply thread suggested that #1 may have
been a bit "artificial", in that many such people are far more
interested in getting people "into" the club, and saving souls, than
truly showing compassion, without strings attached. And, he is right.
Its very hard to tell the difference some times.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
