 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 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.
Me too. They passed Proposition 8.
> 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.
No, it's because they think they should be God's hand on Earth, like God
isn't strong enough to actually enforce his own rules, and they need to do
it for him. Which is one part that always boggled my mind.
> If you leave out this group of spiritual people in your analysis you do
> the religious people unjustice.
As opposed to the injustice the religious people do in the name of their
religion?
> Note that nearly every new religious
> group starts here
Those "new" religions being, what, Scientology and Mormonism?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-Jan-09 18:12, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> No, it's because they think they should be God's hand on Earth, like God
> isn't strong enough to actually enforce his own rules, and they need to
> do it for him. Which is one part that always boggled my mind.
I am sorry, but I think I know my friends better than you do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I am sorry, but I think I know my friends better than you do.
Fair enough. I was referring to the people around here, actually, not your
friends in particular; I phrased that part poorly.
I don't really mind if people believe in their gods or not. It's when they
use physical coercion to attempt to convince me their god is right that it
ticks me off, or that somehow my life would be better in some ill-defined
way if I believed in their god (even tho they have no idea how good or bad
my life is, nor can they describe their god beyond vague handwaving).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-Jan-09 19:02, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I am sorry, but I think I know my friends better than you do.
>
> Fair enough. I was referring to the people around here, actually, not
> your friends in particular; I phrased that part poorly.
I know, but it is one of those things that we better settle on the
record. You never know who is reading along.
> I don't really mind if people believe in their gods or not. It's when
> they use physical coercion to attempt to convince me their god is right
> that it ticks me off, or that somehow my life would be better in some
> ill-defined way if I believed in their god (even tho they have no idea
> how good or bad my life is, nor can they describe their god beyond vague
> handwaving).
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.
All in all I think that your opinion about religious people is too much
influenced by the bad and very visible examples. The situation in the
states may indeed be such that this is more or less understandable.
Don't forget, however, that this is an international group and
reiterating what is wrong with your sort of religious people may not be
understood if you live in another culture. At least I don't recognize
your generalization of 'believers'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I know, but it is one of those things that we better settle on the
> record. You never know who is reading along.
Understood and agreed.
> All in all I think that your opinion about religious people is too much
> influenced by the bad and very visible examples.
Unfortunately, it's the majority of everyone who are visible examples. Plus,
we have multiple wars going on over (at least in part) the same stuff.
I'll shut up now, tho. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oops. Link:
http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-god-of-small-miracles/
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.")
>
Or just try to lift the car. Can't remember the name for it, but there
is a "known" biological mechanism in the body that allows for massive
increases in short term adrenalin production, and the release of
chemicals into the muscles, which are using under stress to increase the
physical output of the muscles. Heck, they even had something one one of
the new Science Fiction shows about it, where people where "doping"
athletes with a virus that contained code to "hyper-manufacture" the
chemical in muscle tissue, which would have made their muscles function
at several times normal capacity, only they screwed up, and it got into
cell walls, where it instead produced "toxic" results. The inability to
"look up" how someone can, naturally, through a known mechanism, gain a
temporary boost in strength, sufficient to lift a car, is **never** a
justification for believing that magic pixies dusted someone with pixie
powder, or any other absurd "supernatural" explanations.
It just shows the same laziness expressed already, in presuming that
they "know" what atheists are all like, based on past misunderstanding,
or prior prejudice, and thus refusing to find out if that perception is
accurate for all of them, let alone "any" of them. Then again, we have
seen it already. The "no true Scotsman" BS. If an atheist isn't like
what I think and atheist should be like, then he/she can't be an
atheist, but must be some sort of theist, even if they "insists" they
are actually an atheist. Same thing here, just with ignorance added in:
"I can't imagine, and don't know, the explanation for how someone could
be temporarily that strong, therefor its impossible for them to be, and
therefor the only explanation is god intervening. Why should I have to
check my facts of do research to "find out" if I am right?"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 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...
Hmm. Point in your favor, you are not a creationist.. lol Oh, nothing
interesting bit, they have finally manage to make a "test" condition
where two very simple RNA sequences, placed in a medium containing only
the "chemicals" needed to make more, result in a continuous process by
which chemical A and B produce E, which then propagates itself, until it
runs out of chemicals. And, like regular RNA/DNA replications, each
"replica" made has slight "mutations" in the structure, do to copy
errors. This puts the difference between life and chemistry at...
roughly the same point as accidentally spilling lemon juice on two
different metal electrodes. The "precise" conditions, or exact
"original" RNA pattern that likely happened is still unknown, but its
been shown that, once you have something able to make copies, even if it
"has to" work with something else to do it, you don't need anything else
to keep it going, just raw materials.
But, it still brings up the question of, "Why is the rest of the stuff
about god true, if the basics, at the start, are dead wrong?"
Course, someone else made a jibe about the whole three different
versions of events in Genesis by stating, "Well, of course something
existed before God. Do you see 'anything' suggesting that he 'created'
the firmament, or the sky itself? No, he breaths upon the waters that
are already there, to start the whole mess. Doesn't that kind of make
him at least a 'little' less impressive to start with, if he had to have
something to start it all from?"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Just a passing thought on religion
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:12:11
Message: <49714c8b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 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...
Hmm, I am sure he will, "keep a padded room open for you, when you
decide to get help". ;) Saying you will pray for someone that doesn't
believe in it is either a) meaningless, since its no different than
suggesting that you will, "wave at them through the computer", or b)
implies that it "has" some sort of meaning for them, other than being
colloquial, and thus accepting it is the same as admitting they believe
after all. I think we can both take it in the terms you didn't intend
though, and just say, "Uh, thanks, but I didn't sneeze, nor do I believe
my soul will leave my body through the nose if you don't say it."
Mind, I can't really speak for Andrel on the subject, so.. maybe he will
have a different take.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like
this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and
maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more
with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist
can't love.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You call me ignorant, I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail
because Science and specially you have an answer to everything, and what
I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed
the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs, that Nature didn't make it
all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never
have a rational explanation there (too many to put here and I don't
recall any now but I have seen many many cases on documentaries and I'm
sure there is something spiritual if not divine out there) are many
outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them,
hahahaha and I'm deluded? oh, think againg, maybe Nature does it all
but has this non-material side or there is actually a spiritual world
and you are the ignorant here. but no you and the Atheists are the
owners of the truth, OK, so be it.
And on all those studies you have, as a very eloquent, logical, rational
trolling pro, did you made the majored in manners, kindness or do you
even have a friends and family that you actually love or you are just a
cold, pedant, disrespectful, longly and scared guy? Oh you stated you
are not scared... hahaha, yeah, right...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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?
>
Free will. I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going
well, you make fun of me at some point and that is disrespectful so as I
don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits.
Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.
Best Regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> My thoughts:
>
> Clarification: I haven't read all posts.
>
> Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of
> creation: something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on
> peace of matter, I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a
> sleepless night.
>
> So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that. As some people
> pointed out, you cant actually find a single proof of God existence and
> probably you wont in your lifetime, hence the belief in God is by faith
> and by faith alone.
And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such. All
proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed to be
true without evidence.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jan-09 3:40, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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?
That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out
what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns out
that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken the
non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping others."
Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate
'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does
not carry across cultures?
> 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,
given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.
> 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.
I did not understand the following until I followed the link in he other
post. So, as an abbreviation it leaves something to be deserved. ;)
> 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.
There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the
church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that
that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation of
their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if someone
would question my intentions in this way.
To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist and
is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact closely
for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. Sometimes
that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes into it and
sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not result in
anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that the internal
changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave friendly
towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We might hope
that the other follows our example, but that does not make any of us
missionaries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jan-09 4:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> 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...
>
> Hmm, I am sure he will, "keep a padded room open for you, when you
> decide to get help". ;) Saying you will pray for someone that doesn't
> believe in it is either a) meaningless, since its no different than
> suggesting that you will, "wave at them through the computer", or b)
> implies that it "has" some sort of meaning for them, other than being
> colloquial, and thus accepting it is the same as admitting they believe
> after all. I think we can both take it in the terms you didn't intend
> though, and just say, "Uh, thanks, but I didn't sneeze, nor do I believe
> my soul will leave my body through the nose if you don't say it."
>
> Mind, I can't really speak for Andrel on the subject, so.. maybe he will
> have a different take.
I just see it as a phrase that is used in some groups that has no actual
meaning. Though I am a bit disturbed by the ominous '...'
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jan-09 6:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking
Have you ever met an atheist??
> and
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist
> can't love.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jan-09 6:58, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> Free will.
?
> I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going
> well, you make fun of me at some point
I don't think he did. Nor would I expect Darren to do something like that.
> and that is disrespectful so as I
> don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits.
> Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.
>
> Best Regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate
> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does
> not carry across cultures?
It does. I understood what you meant, at least.
I think in this case it's a reaction to implying that "atheism needs just as
much faith as theism", which is a common but incorrect meme that religious
people often try to assert.
--
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:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and
> maybe endangering the child,
Oh. So only someone who believes in God is capable of being irrational?
Wow. Just .... wow.
I can't figure out whether you're insulting yourself or atheists more. :-)
--
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:
> Free will.
Just so you know, that's a very pat answer. Perhaps you should think about
this more deeply, and give a response (if only to yourself) that actually
makes a little more sense.
Would "free will" be the same answer as to why people pray to be cured of
prostate cancer but not be mad at God that they got cancer in the first
place? If so, what decision did they make that gave them cancer of their own
free will?
--
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:
> I just see it as a phrase that is used in some groups that has no actual
> meaning. Though I am a bit disturbed by the ominous '...'
I dunno. I leave friends all the time with the admonition "Be well!" That
doesn't mean that I think they need reminding, or that my well wishing will
have any specific effect.
Do you also go off on the clerks that tell you "have a nice day" when you leave?
Now, if Saul said he'd pray for us to see the light that we're so sadly
missing before we wind up in Hell, it would be a bit insulting, but that's
not how I took it. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
First, define God.
> All proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed to be
> true without evidence.
It's a different kind of proof. I can prove that distilled water is not a
significant cause of cancer, but that doesn't lead to absolute certainty.
Plus, most atheists don't claim there is no God, but only that there's no
reason to think there is.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>
> First, define God.
Something outside space and time that can not interact with our universe. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist
> can't love.
Here, it certainly sounds like what you're saying is "I love my child more
than you love yours, because I'm willing to pray to my God for my child's
welfare and you're not." Have I got that straight?
If not, what am I missing?
Do you think atheists are cold-hearted? That they don't have feelings? That
it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine intervention?
Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in this
situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and you didn't
try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've *seen* Yoda lift an
entire X-wing fighter. (I'm completely serious with this question. Why
wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then using the Force?)
--
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:
> You call me ignorant,
You call us fearful and cold-hearted. It isn't personal. :-)
> I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail
> because Science and specially you have an answer to everything,
No! No no no! We do *not* have an answer to everything!
That's exactly the point! *You* have the answer to everything, namely God is
the answer to everything for which you don't already have a better answer.
Most atheists are pretty happy saying "Gee, I don't know how that works."
> I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed
> the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs,
You're deluding yourself if you apply this to me. I'm neither afraid nor
angry, except to the point that religious people are so certain they have
the answer to everything that they screw up my life.
> all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never
> have a rational explanation there
But we're not afraid of not having all the answers, nor are we angry about it.
> outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them,
See, here's the thing. You have this image of what we are, what we're like,
why we are that way. No matter what we say, you think we're doing it to
defend ourselves against the reasonableness that is "Saul's God exists."
We're not making every effort not to see them. We (at least I) am talking to
you, trying to see it. You're just failing to make it clear to *me*. Just
because it's clear to you doesn't mean that I don't see it because I'm
trying to avoid seeing it. In truth, it's really not obvious.
> hahahaha and I'm deluded? oh, think againg, maybe Nature does it all
> but has this non-material side or there is actually a spiritual world
> and you are the ignorant here.
Maybe! I think that's probably closer to truth. That doesn't mean I believe
in your diety, tho.
> And on all those studies you have, as a very eloquent, logical, rational
> trolling pro, did you made the majored in manners, kindness or do you
> even have a friends and family that you actually love or you are just a
> cold, pedant, disrespectful, longly and scared guy? Oh you stated you
> are not scared... hahaha, yeah, right...
Annnnnd... That's All, Folks!
Canned theist having nothing less to say response number twenty-seven:
"I told you you should believe in my god. Since you don't, you obviously
either secretly do and refuse to admit it because you're afraid, or you're a
subhuman monster. Likely both."
Once again, we see the "you can't *really* love your friends and family,
because you don't believe in my diety" statement. Just so you know, that's
exceedingly insulting.
--
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 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>>
>> First, define God.
>
> Something outside space and time that can not interact with our
> universe. ;)
I'm happy with that definition. In that case, there's neither reason to
believe in it or disbelieve in it. There's certainly no reason to worship
it, pray to it, or tell others what it wants you to do. I'm all for that
kind of religion. (Incidentally, it's called "deism". Lots of the folks who
founded the USA had that religion.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in this
> situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and you didn't
> try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've *seen* Yoda lift an
> entire X-wing fighter. (I'm completely serious with this question. Why
> wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then using the Force?)
And if not all of those help, I heard praying for Joe Pesci yields some very
practical results. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out
> what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns out
> that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken the
> non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping others."
>
> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate
> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does
> not carry across cultures?
>
Hmm. I suppose that is possible, but I don't think I have met anyone
that uses "that" as their reason for helping anyone.
>> 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,
>
> given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.
>
I provided a link, stating that his personal definition of what atheists
where like was wrong, and this was an "example" of someone that didn't
fit. Not **real** clear how the heck giving an example is "forcing"
something? I certainly didn't force him to go there, force him to read
it, force him to "anything", including forcing him to ignore it the way
he did. By comparison, the second link was 10,000 times more "forceful",
in that reading the post made reading the man's interpretation of events
mandatory. But, if that is "forcing", then quoting, paraphrasing, or
linking to anything is. It smacks of the tried and true whine you get
from some people that, "Expressing a difference of opinion is bad
enough, but confronting me with facts is going too far! Stop persecuting
me!!"
If that is all it takes.. We are all screwed.
>> 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.
>
> There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the
> church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that
> that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation of
> their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if someone
> would question my intentions in this way.
>
No, nor is the last statement I made about it having to do with what the
"author" said. Its **suspicion* of motive, based on observation, and he
even says, very clearly, in his own comment, that its not possible to
prove if they had that motivation or not, so one has to take in on face
value, even "if" they are suspicious of it being true. I agree. Its not
possible, unless they admit it, through actions or words. The problem
is, a lot of them "do", then claim that having the alterior motive makes
what they did "superior" to everyone else's expression of the same
thing, due to it including "pleasing god", not just "helping people".
> To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist and
> is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact closely
> for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. Sometimes
> that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes into it and
> sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not result in
> anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that the internal
> changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave friendly
> towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We might hope
> that the other follows our example, but that does not make any of us
> missionaries.
True enough. But, again, the principle tends to be undermined by the
fact that, for anyone that claims to really "believe" in certain
religions, there is no justifiable difference between being a person of
compassion and being a missionary. And, that creates a serious problem
for people that don't think the two need be, or should be, connected. It
means that "all" motives from them must be at least "somewhat" suspect,
even if you badly want them not to be. To discount that element of those
religions, is to be dishonest about what they teach, and how they expect
people to behave.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist
> can't love.
No one is rational in a situation like that. And, even if they where,
the "logical" solution is to attempt to move the vehicle anyway, even if
you know you can't, since any other action, including inaction, would
fail. The irony here being, rationally making that decision wouldn't
trigger the same hormonal effect, so it would still fail. But, this only
proves that "irrational" action has benefit, due to how it effects that
brain, not that being "irrational" connects you to some higher power,
which then, while ignoring the purely biological mechanisms involved,
magics things into happening. All your proving is that Vulcans would do
poorly at saving children under cars, while ironically, by invoking the
argument, undermining the intended intended explanation you started with.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Just a passing thought on religion
Date: 17 Jan 2009 21:41:28
Message: <497296d8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Free will. I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going
> well, you make fun of me at some point and that is disrespectful so as I
> don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits.
> Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.
>
> Best Regards.
No, making fun of you would be pointing out how many people send letters
to prominent atheists which contain pages of Bible quotes, proclamations
of how wrong they are, which are logically, and even factually,
inconsistent, mixed with statements about how they will burn in hell,
and or, should die, lose their jobs, etc. All of them ending with either
"I will pray for you", "God Bless You", or "Best Regards". Then saying
something about how much like them you are. You are not though, so I am
just making an observation, not making fun. Most of those people are so
incoherent you can't tell what they are claiming you do do, do think, do
want, or what exactly they think "will" happen to you. Your posts, by
comparison, even if I think you are ignorant when you talk about
atheists, and a bit bigoted, and you are wrong about many things, are
fracking Shakespeare compared to the stuff posted by the average
evangelical I have seen emails and letters from.
But seriously... Spending 5 pages calling them everything from the
antichrist, to a mass murderer, to a liar, and so on, is all "fixed" by
adding "Best Regards" to the end...? Its like being sent a letter by the
Joker, complete with a playing card.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You call me ignorant, I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail
> because Science and specially you have an answer to everything,
Wrong!!! Science is willing to say, "I don't know, lets find out." You
are not. You want answers **now**, and you are willing to take what ever
answer you like best, even if its impossible to test it, rather than
just accept that you don't know yet. All I did say is that you seem to
fail to apply the same, "Hmm, isn't that interesting what the facts say
about evolution...", method to "anything else" in the world where the
Bible doesn't fit what is actually observed to exist, or happen.
> and what
> I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed
> the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs, that Nature didn't make it
> all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never
> have a rational explanation there (too many to put here and I don't
> recall any now but I have seen many many cases on documentaries and I'm
> sure there is something spiritual if not divine out there) are many
> outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them,
> hahahaha and I'm deluded? oh, think againg, maybe Nature does it all
> but has this non-material side or there is actually a spiritual world
> and you are the ignorant here. but no you and the Atheists are the
> owners of the truth, OK, so be it.
>
Lets try this again. I don't give a frack what you "believe" you see,
any more than I care what you believe you believe, as long as you are
not trying to make the world "conform" to those things, based solely one
your personal presumption that you are **right** about any of it. You
don't know a damn thing about what effort any of us have, or do, put
into seeing them. You just "assume" you know, because in your tiny
little world, its impossible for someone to not see it, without putting
effort into failing. Nothing you say above is anything but bigotry in
assuming that everyone that doesn't think like you must think they way
**you** imagine they do (which is to say, exactly like you would think,
if you where one of them), and a total and complete refusal to even
"attempt" to see differently. You are not even one of the blind men
trying to describe an elephant, you are the one in the fracking wheel
chair, that refuses to make the effort of "get to" the thing to touch
it, and instead are convinced that they are all touching parts of a bed,
because beds get infested with snakes, are made of wood, and sometimes
use rope to hold up the curtains around them.
You are not just blind to what is going on, you are not even in the same
room while its bloody happening.
> And on all those studies you have, as a very eloquent, logical, rational
> trolling pro, did you made the majored in manners, kindness or do you
> even have a friends and family that you actually love or you are just a
> cold, pedant, disrespectful, longly and scared guy? Oh you stated you
> are not scared... hahaha, yeah, right...
Umm... At this point I have nothing at all to say except, my family and
friends, one of which just recently stated, "I spent a long time sort of
hoping that maybe Christianity was true, but I just can't do that any
more.", say, 'Screw You!' You have, in this conversation, shown no
respect for anything we have said about our own beliefs, about what we
do think, what anyone we have offered as examples think, or anything
else on our side of the matter. In short, what ever respect I *may have*
given you, on loan, in hopes it might be repaid, has just run dry, been
defaulted on, and, if I thought you had any to pay me back with, I would
be calling a mythological lawyer to drag it out of your mythological world.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/25/atheist_bashing.jpeg
And all else is silence.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I just see it as a phrase that is used in some groups that has no
>> actual meaning. Though I am a bit disturbed by the ominous '...'
>
> I dunno. I leave friends all the time with the admonition "Be well!"
> That doesn't mean that I think they need reminding, or that my well
> wishing will have any specific effect.
>
> Do you also go off on the clerks that tell you "have a nice day" when
> you leave?
>
> Now, if Saul said he'd pray for us to see the light that we're so sadly
> missing before we wind up in Hell, it would be a bit insulting, but
> that's not how I took it. :-)
>
Ah, yes. But, then "Be Well" isn't all that common in as the final
statement on long tirades about how evil, vile, god hating, monstrous,
murderous and damned you are. "Best Regards" and "I will pray for
you...", among a few others, are. Its, like I said someplace else, a bit
like receiving, "You have been invited to a party!", in the Batman
universe, signed "Joker" and with a playing card in the envelope. You
just know that something bad is lurking nearby (or, in the case of
letters, you probably had to crawl through it, to get to the one
semi-sane thing the wrote, the last sentence). ;) lol
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Just a passing thought on religion
Date: 17 Jan 2009 22:07:05
Message: <49729cd9@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>
> First, define God.
>
> > All proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed
> to be
>> true without evidence.
>
> It's a different kind of proof. I can prove that distilled water is not
> a significant cause of cancer, but that doesn't lead to absolute certainty.
>
> Plus, most atheists don't claim there is no God, but only that there's
> no reason to think there is.
>
Or, more to the point, that all the "existing" ones "can be" discounted
for various reasons, not the least being self contradictions,
inconsistencies with the way even religious people agree the world
works, until they need it to "not" work that way, or actually figuring
out where the myths originated, invalidating the claims of when, who and
why they where written.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> But seriously... Spending 5 pages calling them everything from the
> antichrist, to a mass murderer, to a liar, and so on, is all "fixed" by
> adding "Best Regards" to the end...?
God Bless you. :)
It's not like most Christians or religious people are ignorant, it's that most
of humanity is ignorant (yet still deserving of salvation). Most atheists are
ignorant too and just enjoy it as an excuse for an orgiastic life of sex, drugs
and consumerism, not like they care for the scientific method or any such crap.
I guess filling the mistery of our apparent senseless existence with material
pleasures is roughly about as good a way as filling it with prayers and
requests to invisible beings. Human nature...
Still, I understand that many of those who seek spiritual comfort are those that
are the most persistent on a life of sin, lies, cheating, violence. Who can
deny them to seek forgiveness for their acts, in spite of repetitive failure?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
> >> John VanSickle wrote:
> >>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
> >>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
> >>
> >> First, define God.
> >
> > Something outside space and time that can not interact with our
> > universe. ;)
>
> I'm happy with that definition. In that case, there's neither reason to
> believe in it or disbelieve in it. There's certainly no reason to worship
> it, pray to it, or tell others what it wants you to do.
But seemingly there are lots of reasons to start flamewars about it. :)
He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jan-09 3:24, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out
>> what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns
>> out that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken
>> the non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping
>> others."
>>
>> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate
>> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does
>> not carry across cultures?
>>
>
> Hmm. I suppose that is possible, but I don't think I have met anyone
> that uses "that" as their reason for helping anyone.
For all practical purposes the non-existence of God is the base of my
ethics, so count me in.
>>> 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,
>>
>> given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.
>>
> I provided a link, stating that his personal definition of what atheists
> where like was wrong, and this was an "example" of someone that didn't
> fit. Not **real** clear how the heck giving an example is "forcing"
> something? I certainly didn't force him to go there, force him to read
> it, force him to "anything", including forcing him to ignore it the way
> he did. By comparison, the second link was 10,000 times more "forceful",
> in that reading the post made reading the man's interpretation of events
> mandatory. But, if that is "forcing", then quoting, paraphrasing, or
> linking to anything is. It smacks of the tried and true whine you get
> from some people that, "Expressing a difference of opinion is bad
> enough, but confronting me with facts is going too far! Stop persecuting
> me!!"
I know what you meant, but to me it sounded rather similar to that
infamous: "here is a bible, read it!".
[snip]
>> There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the
>> church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that
>> that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation
>> of their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if
>> someone would question my intentions in this way.
>>
> No, nor is the last statement I made about it having to do with what the
> "author" said. Its **suspicion* of motive, based on observation, and he
> even says, very clearly, in his own comment, that its not possible to
> prove if they had that motivation or not, so one has to take in on face
> value, even "if" they are suspicious of it being true. I agree. Its not
> possible, unless they admit it, through actions or words. The problem
> is, a lot of them "do",
And my problem is that I know too many people that don't and would
justifiably be angry if you would question their motives based on
suspicion. Basically what you are saying, or at least suggesting to say,
is that if someone belongs to a church you can not trust them anymore.
> then claim that having the alterior motive makes
> what they did "superior" to everyone else's expression of the same
> thing, due to it including "pleasing god", not just "helping people".
>
>> To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist
>> and is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact
>> closely for some time they can grow philosophically closer together.
>> Sometimes that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes
>> into it and sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not
>> result in anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that
>> the internal changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave
>> friendly towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We
>> might hope that the other follows our example, but that does not make
>> any of us missionaries.
>
> True enough. But, again, the principle tends to be undermined by the
> fact that, for anyone that claims to really "believe" in certain
> religions, there is no justifiable difference between being a person of
> compassion and being a missionary. And, that creates a serious problem
> for people that don't think the two need be, or should be, connected. It
> means that "all" motives from them must be at least "somewhat" suspect,
> even if you badly want them not to be. To discount that element of those
> religions, is to be dishonest about what they teach, and how they expect
> people to behave.
Ah, 'teach' may be the important word here. Most people I have met are
not from churches that teach missionary actions. Apart from the Jehovah
witnesses that come to the door (must be 9 years since I saw the last
one). Catholics here tend to not take serious anybody from the ranks of
bishop up. I have yet to meet a Muslim that has taken it's faith serious
enough to even know how to explain his faith to an infidel. In short,
all religious persons I know personally that are serious about their
faith and every church they are in are not of the missionary type.
Remember, I live in the Netherlands.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jan-09 6:34, nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
>>>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>>>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>>>>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>>>> First, define God.
>>> Something outside space and time that can not interact with our
>>> universe. ;)
>> I'm happy with that definition. In that case, there's neither reason to
>> believe in it or disbelieve in it. There's certainly no reason to worship
>> it, pray to it, or tell others what it wants you to do.
>
> But seemingly there are lots of reasons to start flamewars about it. :)
>
> He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)
And there is silly old me that still claims that there is no consistent
definition of man and woman. Apparently I have to yield to a higher power.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Once again, we see the "you can't *really* love your friends and family,
> because you don't believe in my diety" statement. Just so you know,
> that's exceedingly insulting.
You missed me once again, this paragraph was because you don't need a
pedant trolling to say "I think what you say is wrong because has no
foundation" or something like that, I forgot to clarify that I wrote
that paragraph because I felt insulted and denigrated not because of the
issue we are talking about and this post was to Patrick alone Darren
Hehehe, I don't believe Atheist are monsters, I believe ALL Humans are
created equal(don't take it so literally/rationally I meant as dignified
persons not exact copies) and this I think is religiousless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't believe, and you missed me again, I because I believe in God
know everything, I don't even know why you and Darren keep saying that
of me, I too say "I don't know" but if something indicates a exceptional
fact and is "safe" to say belongs to God, I give credit to Him.
And you are wrong!!! I have being A LOT more respectful to everything
you and Darren have wrote that you both have bein with me, I've being
more open minded that both of you, but OK, is a tie, this discussion has
reached a death end so good bye and GOD BLESS YOU, lol.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
