 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing?
>> Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for
>> them?
>
> These are human tragedies. Shit happens.
>
> It's not good for the people involved, but to what extent? To die as a baby or
> to survive only to be enslaved, or abused, and to die of hunger or AIDS
> eventually? How can you say to live is better than to die? Maybe God has
> other plans for these people. And regardless if you have any faith or not,
> these tragedies always end up resulting in something positive in the end,
> either making us rethink our way of life or being less egoistical. It's
> actually in such times that we see the best of people coming out and letting be
> known.
>
Something good happens, it's time to thank God for it. Something bad
happens, then it must be God's will? Either God does interact with
people in this existence, or he doesn't. If he interacts to cause some
good things to happen, miracles that the tele-evangelists are always
talking about, then why does he continue to allow this bad stuff to happen?
In other words, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, why does his
planning suck?
>> So the original bit still stands - either God *can't* stop the evil, or
>> he *decides* not to stop the evil.
>
> yin-yang. One cannot exist without the other. Evil serves the purpose of
> showing the nature of Good by contrast. Is Evil outside God's control? Was
> Evil created by God as everything else? Or is Evil just a different God?
>
> these questions are outside my reach. It doesn't matter, because I chose the
> side I'm comfortable the most.
>
>
If Evil is outside of God's control, then God is not omnipotent. If he
simply does not stop evil, but allows it to happen when he could act to
stop it, then he is not Good. And if he can not interact with us to stop
it, then why get upset that some people choose not to believe in
something that can not even interact with this existence?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:03:40 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:46:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Not so much that they're too unlikely, but that they are vague enough
>>>> as to take anything that fits the criteria and say "well, it
>>>> happened, so therefore it wasn't improbable enough". See the
>>>> difference?
>>> That's what science is for. And statistics. Generally speaking, it's
>>> *possible* quantum particles could randomly come into existence in the
>>> shape of a living, breathing Jesus. Unlikely enough I'd attribute it
>>> to something else, tho.
>>
>> Exactly; because your belief is that such a thing is unlikely, so there
>> must be a rational (within your frame of reference) explanation for it
>> that you're just not seeing.
>
> I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. Isn't it *your* belief
> that Jesus will be reincarnated by random fluctuations of the quantum
> foam is rather unlikely?
No, it isn't my belief, because I think that if there was a Jesus (in the
first place), he was just a guy with some interesting ideas.
> Were it to happen, I'd think it more likely God made it happen than that
> it was just random.
OK.
>> So if something were to occur that you couldn't put a scientific
>> explanation to, you'd accept that your view was wrong that there isn't
>> a god? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...
>
> That's basically what I'm saying, yes. And it's not just "we don't know
> how it happened", but "we know it can't possibly happen".
But by definition (using your own statistical definition), if it happens,
the probability of it happening is 1, therefore it was possible for it to
happen.
>> For you or me, sure. But you and I don't have the monopoly on
>> perspectives that make sense to people, either. Maybe God told them
>> that the perception was right;
>
> I have no problem with that. Just because it's irrational doesn't mean
> it's *bad*.
Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told me
x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was talking
to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to me.
>> Well, true enough - because the event already happened. But the
>> statistical likelihood of it happening prior to actually happening is
>> what I was referring to.
>
> The statistical likelihood of me rolling 3 6 4 5 1 3 4 2 3 on a die is
> identical to me rolling 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 on a die. You can't look at
> the thing after the fact and say "it was unlikely", because you're
> ignoring all the *other* unlikely things that didn't happen. No volcano
> opened up in San Francisco, nor did the Las Vegas strip flood. But you'd
> be laughed at if you tried to use those non-events to prove the
> non-existence of God.
Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of God.
Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they still
wouldn't prove the existence of God.
>> Exactly. Which is why an event or series of events that have happened
>> (as opposed to "if they do happen") is unlikely to prove that God
>> exists to anyone - because if they do happen, then they were
>> statistically likely to happen and all the information necessary to
>> make that determination just wasn't in yet.
>
> Unless someone predicts it *specifically* in advance.
Nostradamas, anyone? Some say he was very specific (something I disagree
with, but it's all a matter of perspective).
>>>> Agreed, because belief isn't logical. Otherwise, it wouldn't be
>>>> belief, it'd be fact-based.
>>> Well, it isn't (in my experience) logical, but it's also not
>>> scientific. The two are somewhat different.
>>
>> Somewhat different, but strongly related.
>
> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.
That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because
the bible says it is".....
> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
> question doesn't work, we don't use it.
Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)
>>> If you like that sort of stuff, read some Greg Egan works. I'd
>>> recommend Permutation City for a start, or his Axiomatic short-story
>>> collection.
>>
>> I'll add that to my list as well. :-)
>
> "Permutation City" explores the nature of reality and its relationship
> to self. "Quarantine" explores free will. "Disporia" defines
> self-awareness/conciousness in the first dozen pages or so, but I'd have
> to read it again to appreciate it more - read the first chapter or two
> in the bookstore if you like. "Axiomatic" is a collection of short
> stories exploring, well, axiomaticity, if there is such a word.
> "Distress" is about the relationship of love and knowledge and reality,
> sorta.
Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference,
will definitely have to find a copy.
> I see he has more stuff out that I'll have to buy. Cool.
>
> (I found Teranesia very disappointing, and Schild's Ladder interesting
> but not amazing, fwiw.)
>
>> LOL, now *that* made me laugh out loud.
>
> Yeah, when you've studied and thought about these subjects for a couple
> decades, it's not hard to laugh out loud at the stuff people regurgitate
> because they've been told it by their spiritual leaders.
Yes, agreed. I have heard some weird stuff over the years....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Discovery and technological progress is made outside of religion, let religious
> dogmas alone for believers. It's not like one isn't allowed to question, just
> that said questioning is moot, since it's a matter of faith.
Discovery and technological progress (only) made outside of religion?
Hardly. Time management, animal husbandry, hybrid plants, bookkeeping,
water-driven mechanisms, sign language...there's a lot that happened
under the auspice of religion in monastic settings between the fall of
the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told me
> x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was talking
> to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to me.
That's not the meaning of the word "rational" I was using.
> Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of God.
> Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they still
> wouldn't prove the existence of God.
Yes, I know.
> Nostradamas, anyone? Some say he was very specific (something I disagree
> with, but it's all a matter of perspective).
In the things for which he was very specific, he was also wrong.
And again, if you take a prediction that's sufficiently vague, and you
allow for minor errors, it's easy to find *something* that matches.
Mash any five keys on your keyboard. Now go try to find what word that
*might* be in a big dictionary. How often will you find something?
>> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
>> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.
>
> That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because
> the bible says it is".....
I was simply pointing out the difference between science and logic.
Science isn't right because science say it's right. Science is right
because science changes until it matches the observed world.
>> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
>> question doesn't work, we don't use it.
>
> Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)
If A implies B, and A is true, then B is true.
> Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference,
> will definitely have to find a copy.
Amazon!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with eyes to see and
> ears to hear.
And if you disagree, you're stupid, ignorant, and about to be punished
forever in eternal flames! And that's a *good* thing!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> But Loki, Bacchus, and Pan aren't 'Satan'.
Well, I guess you don't see the similarities there. Given that Loki, for
example, came about the same way as Satan did, and did the same stuff
that Satan did, including bringing fire to humanity...
How come when I worship Pele, I'm really worshiping God, but when I
worship Loki, I'm not really worshiping Satan?
> To me, "God" is the sum total of reality which,
So God and Universe mean the same thing? Why confuse things like that?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or are you telling me that starving babies in Africa isn't a bad thing?
>> Cancer is really good in disguise? Lynching blacks is really *good* for
>> them?
>
> These are human tragedies. Shit happens.
So, God allows this evil to happen. OK. That was one of the
possibilities: God can prevent evil, but doesn't.
> Maybe God has other plans for these people.
Burning forever in eternal unbaptized unsaved torment, last I heard.
>> So the original bit still stands - either God *can't* stop the evil, or
>> he *decides* not to stop the evil.
>
> yin-yang. One cannot exist without the other.
OK. Then God *can't* stop the evil. Fair enough.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/11 20:51:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Science replaced religion all the time, you people just keep moving the
>> goal posts and insisting that, "Well, even if we now know X, we don't
>> know Y and God is hiding under Y."
>
> God is not hiding under X or Y, it's everywhere for people with eyes to see and
> ears to hear.
I have eyes to see and ears to hear and I've NEVER ever saw anything supporting
any "God".
>
>> And, just to be clear religion is bad because it derails discovery and
>> promotes dogma, which, as has already been mentioned, **is not allowed**
>> to be questioned.
>
> Discovery and technological progress is made outside of religion, let religious
> dogmas alone for believers. It's not like one isn't allowed to question, just
> that said questioning is moot, since it's a matter of faith.
>
Dogma refute anything that's not concordent with it's dictates. You can't count
the times when religions and dogma suppressed discoveries and technological
progress. You can't count because there are to many cases! That's not counting
all the cases when dogma have perverted discoveries and technological progress.
>> When the first versions of the Bible where published
>> in English, it caused paranoia, fear and fundamentalism, since it
>> demanded that everyone accept *all* of its contents as literally true,
>> by its own definitions, and people where so scared of getting it wrong
>> that they where willing to kill people to force them to follow it.
>
> "God writes right by twisted lines."
>
> You'd be more accurate, though, to say that many people have died as result of
> fanatism of all kinds: patriotic fanatism, political fanatism, racial
> fanatism. Why stop at religious fanatism? Besides, the Crusades had mainly
> economical motives, not religious.
Religious fanatism is by far the worst kind.
>
> It's well known how those in power corrupt weaker minds by any means they can
> get. This includes religion, of course. It's a powerful thing because you can
> make people willing to die for salvation to perform terrible acts. So, yes, the
> Catholic Church as an extension for Rome imperialism really committed several
> acts that go against anything Christ ever taught. This does not invalidate His
> teachings and guidance, nor God's covenant with the Hebrews. We're humans,
> bound to sin and to misinterpret things due to our bias.
>
> still, by blood, suffering and death has Christ made a new covenant for us with
> God. A similar fate awaited early for those while the religion spread like
> wild fire. you know, "no pain, no gain".
>
> Wasn't it for the Roman Empire and their will to conquer, Christianity would not
> be as widespread and many more people would never have heard of the Gospel and
> the salvation... evil, it seems, is not without purpose.
>
> Someone asked before what would make me lose my faith, or something. Well, it'd
> be to know for sure that Christ didn't exist; that he was a fraud invented by a
> group of hellenic israelites to fit existing prophecies; that his marvelous
> quotes and moral quidance are product of poetic and moral inspiration rather
> than divine inspiration; that he didn't die for us since he never existed; that
> the whole OT is just retro-writing and folk tales. It all seem very likely and
> even logical. Certainly a sure-bet from the non-believer's point-of-view.
>
>> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SIMBUR.html
>
> nice, thanks.
>
>
History show that as culture and education flourish, religion wither. Religion
is only a crutch to try to understand the world around the uncultivated, and a
shackle for the cultivated peoples.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you try to compress a mandelbrot
landscape made of spheres just to 4 lines of pov code.
Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/11 00:49:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Its almost a sign
>> of fundamental insanity for someone to suggest that this *hasn't*
>> distorted both the interpretation of historical facts that *are* in
>> evidence, and to strongly imply why some people would much rather
>> imagine ones that have *never* been in evidence, rather than admit that,
>> once again, the churches interpretation is the one that is badly out of
>> sync of reality.
>
> are all atheists really this boring? That last sentence was pretty long, just
> as the hundreds of them before. I had to skip and lost track. sorry...
I'm not an atheist, but I don't beleive that there is a "God".
>
> you sound like Fox Mulder. you know: "I want to believe". Because you're
> obsessed in trying to find physical proofs of Jesus existence.
>
> forget it: he came as a humble man, too insignificant for the ones in power,
> but sufficiently of an agitator to receive death penalty... nothing too shabby
> to figure in official records...
Acording to the Nativity, Jesus was born during a Roman census, the IVth or Vth
census, the others been to off the date of year I AD. So, he MUST be registered
in one of those two census. In ALL Roman census, every resident of the Empire
war obligated to register himself as well as any child, spouse and slave under
his autority. Joseph was in Bethlem precisely, and uniquely, for the census.
There are still traces from all Roman census. Aparently, Jesus don't figure in
those census...
The first of the two was held around 50BC and the second around 12 AD. That mean
that the monk who set the year 1 was wrong.
>
> though I find it funny you don't mention the James Cameron documentary about
> Jesus tomb...
>
>
It should be noted that the name "Jesus" was a prety common one in that time.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple of clowns, don't hesitate - go for
the juggler.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:07:12 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> the pagans just didn't know any better.
Um, excuse me, used to be a practicing Pagan here. Raised Lutheran
first, opted for Paganism, now closer to atheism.
Don't presume to tell me I don't know any better, please.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
