On 11 Jul 2009 21:45:15 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:16:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> but I would not
>>>> honour someone like Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age.
>>>> Except maybe out of fear. ;)
>>>
>>>Agreed. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> That's another world problem solved.
>
>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with 
>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>

That's the plan :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:54:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, 
>>> Or, to clarify with an example:
>>>
>>> Cheating:  I get $100, costing you $200.
>>> Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
>>> Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't 
>>> worth it.
>>>
>>> The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little 
>>> island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)
>> 
>> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!"  :-)
>No, what he forgot is the catch-22 of religion, which is, 

[snip]

Thinking and faith don't go together.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12-7-2009 8:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you 
>> can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the 
>> search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions from 
>> others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound 
>> basis to build your own ethics.
>> I don't like the "I don't care".
> 
> On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything?

Easy. If you are convinced that you can not know if God exists or not 
(which is what agnosticism is about, all your other examples are 
irrelevant here), it means that you have to build an ethics that will 
work in both cases. You can not assume there is someone else that knows 
better (a god or her representative on earth), nor can you be certain 
that you won't be judged after death on what you did in your entire 
life. That means that you have to think about what you are doing and you 
will have to make the right choice everytime by yourself. With 'right' 
defined by a much broader spectrum of ethics than that of a single 
religion. E.g. simply defining another group as non-human won't work. 
(i.e. if your current social environment allows you to recognize this as 
an item, but that is a whole different discussion.)

Believe me, simply being one in a crowd of atheists or believers is much 
more simple. (BTW I am not an agnostic, in case you are wondering).

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with
>>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>
> That's the plan :)

It's always good to have a plan. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:58:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  It wasn't until the NT
> that hell really became defined

You may not have noticed, but I wasn't actually speaking solely of 
Christianity - or any individual religion. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> God created x, y, and z. 
> 
> Um, OK.  I think an awful lot of religious nuts think God is actively 
> intervening, tho.

This is actually what eventually changed my opinion on the subject.

Based on my own observations, contrasting the time when I was actively 
going to church & obeying every little rule, with the time when I pretty 
much didn't give a f*ck, I didn't really notice any difference in my life.

Which means one of four things:
1) God doesn't exist,
2) God exists, but doesn't care about us,
3) God exists, cares about us, and doesn't intervene in our lives.
4) God exists, cares about us, and intervenes in other peoples' lives, 
but not mine.

Of those options, the first is the most attractive.  The other options 
all imply a God who is at best negligent.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:

>
> This is actually what eventually changed my opinion on the subject.
>
> Based on my own observations, contrasting the time when I was actively
> going to church & obeying every little rule, with the time when I pretty
> much didn't give a f*ck, I didn't really notice any difference in my life.
>
> Which means one of four things:
> 1) God doesn't exist,
> 2) God exists, but doesn't care about us,
> 3) God exists, cares about us, and doesn't intervene in our lives.
> 4) God exists, cares about us, and intervenes in other peoples' lives,
> but not mine.
>
> Of those options, the first is the most attractive.  The other options
> all imply a God who is at best negligent.
>

You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
to respond.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too 
> slow
> to respond.

Or his timescale is too fast to respond :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:28:30 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too 
>> slow
>> to respond.
>
>Or his timescale is too fast to respond :-)
> 

Did someone say something?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with
>>>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>>
>> That's the plan :)
>
>It's always good to have a plan. :-)
>

And someone to blame ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message