 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nemesis [mailto:nam### [at] gmail com]
> my main issue with modern medicine is not with the science of it, but
> commercialism: its huge attachment to the pharmaceutics/drugs
industry
> and
> what I observe to be some lack of etics by the "doctors".
I've been hugely fortunate in my experience with Doctors; the ones I've
known have seemed to be genuinely caring & sincere in their desire to
help.
Of course, the only doctors I've been in contact with in the last 10
years have been ER staff, so maybe that has something to do with it...
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:495### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
> > "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or
ear
> > inflamation it's the same damned thing: get her some antibiotics.
F*ck, no!
> > I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.
> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
> microbes such as MRSA.
That's where the paradox lies, and I am not sure if one resolution is better
than the other. From the point of the individual, it's not his or her
problem that antibiotic use in general populace and in the long term breeds
resistant strains. The personal benefit is real, and outweighs the personal
risk. Limiting the use of antibiotics out of concern for breeding resistant
strains places the society before the individual. Such sacrifices are fine,
but I think they should be voluntary instead of mandated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-Dec-08 14:49, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:495### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
>>> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>
>>> Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or
> ear
>>> inflamation it's the same damned thing: get her some antibiotics.
> F*ck, no!
>>> I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.
>
>> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
>> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
>> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
>> microbes such as MRSA.
>
> That's where the paradox lies, and I am not sure if one resolution is better
> than the other. From the point of the individual, it's not his or her
> problem that antibiotic use in general populace and in the long term breeds
> resistant strains. The personal benefit is real, and outweighs the personal
> risk. Limiting the use of antibiotics out of concern for breeding resistant
> strains places the society before the individual. Such sacrifices are fine,
> but I think they should be voluntary instead of mandated.
>
Whether the personal benefit is real is questionable, possibly in the
very short term, but probably not on a longer time scale. Having every
individual make that decision is silly. Any responsible government or
professional healthcare organisation should make that because that is
their responsibility. All in all a very 'American' point of view if you
ask me (and I don't even know where you are living).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances.
#declare Christian_Proselytization=on;
I think that I have a problem with the presuppositions here. Christianity might
not make much sense if it were like this: we're all doing fine, just trying our
best, and all of a sudden you find out that you had to have had one particular
sports team's logo on the shirts of your closet or you face eternal torment.
Then you spend a lot of time in philosophical analysis wondering how fair or
unfair it was that you had to choose one sports team.
As a Christian, I don't find that line of argument very convincing at all, I
might "disbelieve" a religion that was accurately described by the analogy.
It ultimately boils down to conviction of sin. If you're not feeling "terrors of
the conscience", you need not apply.
I think what I'm talking about is best described in C.S. Lewis' Mere
Christianity, Chapter 5.
#include " http://tinyurl.com/96hf7a "
#declare useful_QUOTE="Most of us have got over the pre-war wishful thinking
about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> I think that I have a problem with the presuppositions here.
[snip]
> As a Christian, I don't find that line of argument very convincing at all, I
> might "disbelieve" a religion that was accurately described by the analogy.
I'm pretty sure that "believing in Jesus" is required to get you into heaven
in most evangelical christian religions.
In any case, the point I was making is that if you don't believe in free
will, it's not up to you whether you "believe" or "disbelieve", or whether
you feel the "conviction of sin."
It's like calling a religion "unjust" if you are punished because you chose
to be born female.
The very fact that anyone feels it's useful to argue about religion means
they feel your religion is a choice. That when it's time to decide whether
you "accept jesus as your personal savior" or "accept that Mohamed is his
prophet", that it's actually a choice and not completely predestined. If you
could no more "choose" to believe in Jesus than you could to disbelieve in
gravity, there's not a whole lot of point in discussing whether you should
or shouldn't believe in a particular religion. *That* was the kind of belief
I was talking about w.r.t. "free will."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. So, my belief is: a Supreme Being that created our
universe, and the universe evolved naturally to create everything else,
maybe even life, a Being that designed matter and energy that could be
the root of a nice existence with free will, so we don't be puppets for
the fun of a Superior Being, so I deduct He loves us so much that would
let it all happen even if that means saying He doesn't exist at all.
I also believe that dying is simply growing up spiritually, going to a
"purely functional" spiritual world where we can see what the real deal
was all about as a child enters the adult world. I think we will be
judged by our hearts and good deeds and not for the following of a "true
religion". Even the Bible says people without law will be judged without
law (in that case, Jewish law, Torah), so I think that day God will
square things for everyone, people that unfairly took advantage for no
good reason and leaved un-judged a "good life" would have their punishment.
I think: God=Love, and from there everything good can come to us, that
is the root of everything good.
Defining Love as a 100% non-selfish behavior, hence we can't love with
perfection because we always take a little "payment" for us (always a
little selfish at least).
Defining violence as the near 100% selfish behavior.
Is so simple, yet so hard to do...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Forgot to say:
The Big Bang is to The universe as Love is to our spirituality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Corrections:
> and lived un-judged a "good life" would have their punishment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of
> creation:
If they have, they're wrong. If nothing else, one piece of evidence does not
make for "proof", especially if one also claims evolution is "only a theory."
> something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on
> peace of matter,
Someone found evidence of radioactive decay of short-life radioactive atoms
embedded as a physical mark (a ring, to be exact) inside crystals of stone
that are normally thought to take much longer to solidify than it takes the
radioactive particles to decay.
The creationist interpretation was "god put them all there at the same
time", conveniently ignoring the evidence of the Big Bang on which many of
them also rest arguments for the existence of God.
Other physicists and geologists look at that and go "Huh, that's
interesting. Someone ought to look further." Creationists claim success in
forming a global theory of the existence of the universe based on lack of
theory to explain one piece of evidence, as usual.
> I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a sleepless night.
You didn't miss much.
> So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that.
Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". "Evidence" doesn't lead to "proof"
without other supporting evidence, which is what science actually provides.
(Note the lack of comment on your beliefs. This comment is about science,
not belief. :-)
--
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:
> (Note the lack of comment on your beliefs. This comment is about
> science, not belief. :-)
>
Hmm. Good call, given that I couldn't make much coherent out of it. It
is, as honest scientists would tell you, basically meaningless. If you
can't detect it, detect how it reacts with the world, or even if it
does, and your hypothesis about its attributes does nothing to generate
testable question, which "might" give a clearer view of the world, its
no more useful to postulate god = love, than it is to postulate an
undetectable tea pot in orbit of Pluto. A list of assertions is just
that, a list of assertions. The problem isn't that people believe these
things, or assert them in describing their beliefs, but that they quite
often think that they should "replace" science. The left and right have
similar groups of people in that respect, though, while for the right
its assertions about gods, for the left its become assertion of a wacky
mix of new age gibberish and altie medicine, on which the "same" basic
argument gets made, "Scientists are all a huge conspiracy to deny the
'spiritual' stuff in the world (which doesn't, from hundreds of years of
evidence, actually work, or is, in the worst cases, a total con game)
and replace it with a purely 'materialistic' view, which denies
everything from magic healing crystals, to Exstenze male enhancement
pills, to the divinity of Jesus (if your one of the people on the other
end of the spectrum). That, as one doctor put it, any "alternative" to
medicine, if it actually worked, would be called "medicine", doesn't
faze such people any more than the other end of the woo line is
disturbed by their total lack of any ability to show that prayer
actually effects the recovery of "anyone" in a hospital (or, in the
funniest case where one of their unthink-tanks ran a study, actually
killed more people).
--
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 people like you are voluntarily blind to spirituality and make
sure to stay this way, hence any belief in God is just non-sense from
"wacky people". I wonder what kind of fear(s) relies in this denial
behavior... comfortableness of a materialistic world? who knows, but I
think you are wasting your time analyzing religion/spiritual related
matters when you have an aperture to it of any kind, because everything
would be just non-sense anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-Jan-09 18:58, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think people like you are voluntarily blind to spirituality
I can only speak, but I know that I have had experiences that I am sure
would have been called spiritual by others. I have had that moment, like
probably many others, when for the first time and in an just instant
totally understood how mind boggling big the universe is. My favorite
one, however, is the one I had in class the subject was general
relativity and basically our teacher let us 'discover' that light is a
property of any geometry with 3 space and a time dimension. I don't
think I can relate to you in any way how you feel when you suddenly and
completely realizes that of the famous opening of the bible*:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
statement three is totally superfluous.
I am assuming that you don't know what I mean because most religious an
'spiritual' people tend to stare you blank in the face if you tell them
how much of a spiritual experience maths can be and give this example.
And then they don't even know that on the board were only some matrices
and a 4 dimensional generalization of the maxwell equations with those
cute square operators. My wife says she understands.
In short, even atheists can be very spiritual or religious or whatever
you want to call that. We just experience the feelings in another
environment.
Just to give another famous example of what I might mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
> and make sure to stay this way, hence any belief in God is just
> non-sense from "wacky people".
I wouldn't say wacky, 'misled' would suffice ;)
> I wonder what kind of fear(s) relies in this denial
> behavior... comfortableness of a materialistic world?
Not everybody appreciates this kind of pseudo-psychology. I know I don't.
> who knows, but I
> think you are wasting your time analyzing religion/spiritual related
> matters when you have an aperture to it of any kind, because everything
> would be just non-sense anyway.
I think you'll find that there are a lot of 'atheists' that have studied
the bible and other holy books in more detail than your average
minister. They won't consider that a waste of time themselves.
------
*) suppressing the urge to quote not the new international version but
the lolcat translation, because this is a serious matter.
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he
did not eated dem.
2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode
invisible bike over teh waterz.
3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> voluntarily blind to spirituality
I double-ice-cream-dare you to watch these without a sense of awe. (Except
for the brief excerpt of the Numa Numa guy in the middle, of course.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvNhw888XmM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM
I pity those who need a God to provide their spirituality, sense of beauty,
or their knowledge of good and evil.
--
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 13-Jan-09 22:04, Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> voluntarily blind to spirituality
>
> I double-ice-cream-dare you to watch these without a sense of awe.
> (Except for the brief excerpt of the Numa Numa guy in the middle, of
> course.
WTH?? Who ordered mthat?
> )
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I pity those who need a God to provide their spirituality, sense of beauty,
> or their knowledge of good and evil.
You know, you are rather good at trolling. Pro level. :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-Jan-09 22:21, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I pity those who need a God to provide their spirituality, sense of beauty,
>> or their knowledge of good and evil.
>
> You know, you are rather good at trolling. Pro level. :P
>
I think that sentence was fully justified by the tone of the post of
Saul. Perhaps you missed that tone because you happen to agree with Saul
but not with Darren.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I think that sentence was fully justified by the tone of the post
It was simply a statement of fact. I honestly feel bad for people who need
some supernatural being to provide them with the sense of wonder of the
universe, or to threaten them with harm if they don't follow the moral code
they've decided they ought to follow.
It's no more a troll than Saul accusing me of being too afraid to admit he's
right and my life is wasted.
And yes, thank you, my trolling is second only to my BSing. Probably because
I actually think about the topics I tend to troll on, because I want to see
and consider the validity of the responses I tend to get. :-)
--
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 Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:58:22 -0400, Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>I think people like you are voluntarily blind to spirituality and make
>sure to stay this way, hence any belief in God is just non-sense from
>"wacky people".
That's true in my case.
>I wonder what kind of fear(s) relies in this denial
>behavior... comfortableness of a materialistic world? who knows,
There are lots of dirt poor people who don't believe in a god so materialism is
not really a reason. There are lots of bad people who believe in a god but that
does not make them able to go through the eye of a needle.
>but I think you are wasting your time analyzing religion/spiritual related
>matters when you have an aperture to it of any kind, because everything
>would be just non-sense anyway.
Truer words n'er spoken.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think people like you are voluntarily blind to spirituality and make
> sure to stay this way, hence any belief in God is just non-sense from
> "wacky people". I wonder what kind of fear(s) relies in this denial
> behavior... comfortableness of a materialistic world? who knows, but I
> think you are wasting your time analyzing religion/spiritual related
> matters when you have an aperture to it of any kind, because everything
> would be just non-sense anyway.
?? You do know how many fracking people that call themselves atheist
right now started out as complete and total believers right? By my
estimate its like 50:50. But seriously, heard the argument before, and
its complete idiocy, even without the fact that half the people that now
deny religion started out religious.
Oh, and, just to be clear, there are a lot of people that do believe in,
and do analyze spirituality and religions, how never the less get
sneered at by both atheists and believers alike, because they invariably
reach the conclusion that no one could possibly believe in an
interventionist god. One side sneers at them because you can't turn on
the TV without hearing someone babbling about how god directly
intervened in something, and the other side sneers at them for not
"getting really spirituality and the truth that god truly does intervene
in people's lives". So, are these "scholars" also "blind"?
As for fear.. The only thing I fear from religion is the kind of
stupidity and ignorance that can lead to people insisting that the
solution to every problem our nation faces is more churches, less
evidence based facts in schools, more historical revisionism, and less
"evil materialist insistence on treating the world like we can
understand it!". That scares the hell out of me. Your fiction that I
might burn in hell or end up in limbo, or be reincarnated as snail, or
what ever the heck you think is going to happen, holds about as much
fear for me as the possibility that Freddy Cruger is real and will visit
me in my dreams, to kill me. And, no, you are the one confusing wishful
thinking with the idea that just because you find "comfort" in an idea
it has to be "right". How often is that "ever" true in the real world?
--
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 think you'll find that there are a lot of 'atheists' that have studied
> the bible and other holy books in more detail than your average
> minister. They won't consider that a waste of time themselves.
>
Yeah. As an example, PZ Myers is one of the most unappologetic atheist
science bloggers around, and at this point he has so many copies of the
fracking Bible in his house that he has to throw some out once in a
while to keep space on his shelves for other *useful* books. Why?
Because, despite having grown up with one, and making the mistake of
actually reading the damn thing (a mistake that most preachers never do,
unless in a group, so they can convince each other it makes sense),
pretty much every evangelical that ever shows up to "refute" his science
sends him a copy to this place of work, on the insane theory that no one
else has ever "thought of" sending him a Bible to "convert" him to
religion... During 'Cracker Gate', in which PZ dared to challenge the
legitimacy of the idea that the life of a college student was worth
"less" than a Euchrist, more than a few of these people also suffered
what has become known as "Fatwa Envy", and sent him copies of the Koran,
daring him to also desecrate that. One wonders at these people's reading
comprehension, or just general blindness, given that the image that
started all of them attacking him had several pages out of Richard
Dawkin's book, an euchrist *and* several pages out of a Koran, in a
trashcan, covered in his used coffee grounds, and pieced through by a
rusty nail. No idea how many morons sent him copies, but not one of them
ever read the original article, understood what was being protested, or
had a damn clue that he had "already" desecrated a Koran as part of the
protest of place *any* supposedly "holy" object higher than human life.
And, that isn't even mentioning copies of numerous other religious works
he owns, and has read, and had his, also atheist kids, read.
Truth is, almost universally, the only atheists that have "never" read
the Bible at all, are rejected by atheist communities because a) they
make stupid arguments, b) prove not to know what they are talking about,
c) fall for other stupid BS, d) are obviously angry or confused, and
didn't reach their point of view by learning anything at all, and e)
almost always "convert back" the moment some crisis pops up in their
lives, and some religious person is nicer to them for their irrational
thinking, demands for the universe to be nice to them, and disinterest
in sound advice, than all the atheists they latched onto, thinking it
made them look cool to be one (kind of like fake Goths, or like the
"plastic hippies" that they used to talk about in the 60s-70s, who only
showed up on their days off to "pretend" to be one of the culture.) Fake
atheists, that don't get there honestly via understanding and a true
desire to learn, are not going to get much sympathy, especially after
they prove unwilling to learn or understand. We might be willing to show
them the way to find a real understanding, but when it became obvious
that all they where is someone "playing at it", you can be quite sure
our reaction to them would be the same as someone showing up to "help"
at a church fund raiser, for the sole purpose of pretending to care,
while pocketing all the money they took in for themselves.
If you don't know how other atheists got to their conclusions, you are
not going to be hand held, just pointed to sources, and one of the
"first" things we **ever** say to anyone professing to side with us, if
they seem ignorant, is, "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover,
without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from
other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, and. One of the fun arguments you guess you is that faith gives
hope. Here is the take of a "ex-priest" turned atheist blogger one that
subject:
http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/of-myths-and-postmen/
--
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:
> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover,
> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from
> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
in the wrong way in many parts.
You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
*modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
"someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
conclusions.
But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
(both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> voluntarily blind to spirituality
>
> I double-ice-cream-dare you to watch these without a sense of awe.
> (Except for the brief excerpt of the Numa Numa guy in the middle, of
> course.)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvNhw888XmM
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM
>
> I pity those who need a God to provide their spirituality, sense of
> beauty, or their knowledge of good and evil.
>
OK guys, I think I let myself carried away and went a little harsh on
Patric, but I felt a little offended when he minimized some things that
I find great and important, but now I see he was only expressing his
POV, that is Point of View... STOP RAYTRACING THAT MUCH! :-).
Patrick, I apologize if I offended you. Let me tell you that you can't
find God, God finds you IF you actually are looking to meet Him/Her/It.
You write like you actually don't care about spirituality but you care
enough to write a justification about its inexistence, so maybe you feel
the spiritual vibe but not in a classical way but your own... I'm only
guessing of course, but don't you feel there is something else than just
a bunch of molecules that gives emotions and memories to you, you
actually think where are biological robots of Evolution? That we are
what we are because Natural Evolution created life and that's it? Even
that thinking is logical somehow I doesn't satisfies me, not even close.
I respect your POV and is simply logical to think that way but I think
there is more, much more... When I had ega enough to go "religious" and
my Mom told me about God that created the Universe and stuff I had
already saw documentaries about the Universe and it just made perfect
sense to me; I'm not trying to convince you about anything just giving
you my POV.
andrel, the Bible was written as "poetry" in some points to better
describe God deeds, so you are taking it the wrong way.
Darren, I value Astronomy, Science, Raytracing, Music from group Era and
Enya and other stuff, by themselves and as a gift from God to us, you
misinterpreted me my friend.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvNhw888XmM
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM
>
> I pity those who need a God to provide their spirituality, sense of
> beauty, or their knowledge of good and evil.
Forgot to say, beautiful videos, fascinating all of them, just cruelly
short, specially the DNA one.
One more thing there are things that only God can provide and yes
somehow it shapes your perception of "spirituality, sense of
beauty, or their knowledge of good and evil"... Makes them better... :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, no, you are the one confusing wishful
> thinking with the idea that just because you find "comfort" in an idea
> it has to be "right". How often is that "ever" true in the real world?
More than you or any other Atheist would ever be willing to admit, I
have a pragmatical logic too but there are things that when you analyze
them has subtle spiritual features if you are willing to admit such a
possibility, not for spirituality it self, nor for religion nor science
but fir truth sake. I believe there is more than meets the eye and more
than science in the Universe.
Is not something me or anyone can convince you, is something you have to
search for yourself, search the truth about spirituality, make your
spiritual homework and see what happens. And I'm not saying you become a
Monk and go on foot to the Himalayas to pray, just do it in your
everyday if you like.
Finally I'm sorry but I won't read what the Atheist ex-Priest wrote
since I think Atheist are short sighted spiritually and they just
speak/write from that POV, maybe later as a curiosity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> but don't you feel there is something else than just
> a bunch of molecules that gives emotions and memories to you,
Yes.
> you actually think where are biological robots of Evolution?
Yes, in the sense that I think you mean it.
> That we are what we are because Natural Evolution created life and that's it?
Yes.
Those things are not mutually contradictory. It's entirely possible to be
"just a bunch of molecules" and for there to be something more that gives
emotions and memories.
"Don't you think there's more than just transistors and silicon and wires in
your computer that make it capable of processing Word documents? Surely a
rusty metal plate that's just like my metal plate can't hold your thoughts
and feelings while you're not thinking them."
> Darren, I value Astronomy, Science, Raytracing, Music from group Era and
> Enya and other stuff, by themselves and as a gift from God to us, you
> misinterpreted me my friend.
I didn't say "value". I said "inspire awe". :-) When using the same
terminology and arguments as others whose goal is to destroy you, you might
want to consider what the other person might associate with the phrases you
use. I am not sure I misinterpreted, since I didn't take you to be
particularly attacking me. I merely took you to be crass and hubric, not
intentionally offensive or threatening. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To get a pragmatic POV about religion from a true Priest I advice to see
a scene of the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven (2005)' in which a Priest that
was about to go into a certain-death battle addresses his last words to
the main Character (Legolas in Lord of The Rings, can't remember his name).
Those words and "never take compassion away from your heart" have set my
spiritual path for life.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Forgot to say, beautiful videos, fascinating all of them, just cruelly
> short, specially the DNA one.
There's actually a lovely long one about 15 or 20 minutes long that goes on
about the system's response to infection. I couldn't find that, but I'll
post it if I run across wherever I wrote it down.
Awe-inspiring that we actually know (for example) how fast DNA replicates
and such.
> One more thing there are things that only God can provide and yes
> somehow it shapes your perception of "spirituality, sense of
> beauty, or their knowledge of good and evil"... Makes them better... :-)
Hmmm... Hard to understand what you mean without the punctuation, but I'm
inclined to disagree.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover,
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
>
> Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
>
> You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
>
> Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
>
> But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
>
QFT
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> there are things that when you analyze
> them has subtle spiritual features if you are willing to admit such a
> possibility
I'm willing to admit such a possibility. I'd like to hear some of your
suggestions, tho.
I'll note, however, that "spiritual features" does not mean "my personal
invisible friend has caused it."
> I believe there is more than meets the eye and more
> than science in the Universe.
Of course there is. That doesn't mean it's (a) your God, (b) anyone else's
God, or (c) unnatural.
> Is not something me or anyone can convince you, is something you have to
> search for yourself, search the truth about spirituality, make your
> spiritual homework and see what happens.
And here, once again, is the "if you disagree, you didn't think about it
hard enough, or you're stupid" approach to argument. Do you really think
that neither Patrick nor I have searched for the truth about it?
Just look at what you're saying, and see if you don't recognise how
obnoxious you're being.
"I wonder what you're afraid of that keeps you from agreeing with me?"
"You really should think about it pretty hard, and then you'll see I'm right."
> Finally I'm sorry but I won't read what the Atheist ex-Priest wrote
"Because I know I'm already right, I won't listen to anyone like you, but
I'll assume you never listened to anyone like me, because if you did, you'd
obviously already agree."
> since I think Atheist are short sighted spiritually and they just
> speak/write from that POV, maybe later as a curiosity.
"And besides, you already agree, you're just too stupid to notice it."
Obviously I'm exagerating this, but it really is essentially what you're
saying by continuing to argue like this.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK Darren, I see how you see me now, and I'm not a pretentious
religious/spiritual prick that thinks that anyone not believing in some
sort of divinity is a stupid of some kind, inferior or with less dignity
than anyone deserves. I might be a little obnoxious at some point
assuming too much and for that I apologize.
By the way everyone here expresses their thoughts and beliefs I think
you all are very educated and smart people, no doubt, and my intention
was never to offend or humiliate anyone or anyone's beliefs if I did,
again, I sincerely beg your pardon.
I would like to clarify my intentions:
I'm not trying to prove you wrong and me right, is not about that is
just I believe that there is a spiritual world and yes I'd like you to
see it and believe it too, but not because of I'm right and "you are
just too stupid to see it", no, not at all, is just because I
think/believe is there and would like to you to see it too, that is all.
And this is the breaking point I think because nobody can actually show
it to you or anybody else and is only rational to not believe is such a
world, I understand that that is your point of view and I'm fine with
it. All I'm writing about it is that is not something you think and you
find, see? you think I was always a believer? you think I didn't have
the same doubts and logical analysis of this stuffs and I found myself
annoyingly and completely out of place in the middle of believers? I did
and is just the wrong approach towards it, is not something you think or
just a feeling is something you experience and realize it has to be God
and there is the testimonials of other people that some you realize are
just delusional and some that makes you think that it must be God that
helped/manifested/spoke to that person.
Those are only other's experiences until something happens to you and
you know that you were blind to some stuff that were there the whole
time, and you didn't see it because you didn't looked/thought well but
because it needed certain conditions to get revealed to you, so you can
experience it in your life. Is a perception, you can always question it,
YES, YOU CAN ALWAYS QUESTION IT, and ultimately discard it for a
rational explanation or not enough evidence but if you actually go for
the facts and don't get stuck so much of the how it happened, you can
see yourself changed by that experience and became a believer, because
you experienced something that no rational thinking can explain not even
your own.
Darren, I'm just describing here what mostly happened to me and other
spiritual/religious people, I'm not saying: "this is an irrefutable
deduction and if you don't agree with it then you are some kind of
retarded moron".
For rational thinking is endless nebula that never clears, for the
believer is a certainty called faith. The closest approach to
spirituality or being is contact with God I can give you: is like being
in-love; no matter how or how many times I describe the feeling you can
only know it by experiencing it yourself.
If you experienced other religious and/or spiritual situations which I
don't know of and still you find yourself an Atheist it may well such a
world be inexistent. That and other stuff will be known when we die, so
is not something
I think nobody but yourself can get you to a spiritual world, once you
experience it you know is there. A spiritual guide, and I don't pretend
to be one, can only do that show you what you could do to experience
spirituality, not give you a magical recipe or some kind of mechanism or
exercise to get there.
Once I heard an Anglican Priest said that we don't get to God, God comes
to us hen we call(pray to) Him, like a 3 year old child to his Mom/Dad.
One "proof" of spirituality could be this experiment made to prove the
healing power of prayers(was an International news on TV you probaly
have saw it): doctor made a wound in the arms of 2 small groups each
with men and women on them, like a 1" "volcano" type of wound made by
Doctors, all nice and controlled by professionals in a medical center,
both groups didn't know what is it all about for real just that they
were going to see how a new drug cured injuries or some story I don't
recall clearly(it's not important either), they went for about 10 days,
daily to the medical center for routine check up and to take the
"experimental drug"(placebo), each person has to go to an isolated room
where He/She put her arm through a hole and leave it there on a small
table to support it for a few minutes, on 1 group nothing was made, on
the other group people came to pray for a few minutes, in silence,
approaching their hands about 7 cms (3") above the injured arm, the the
prayers went off in silence. At the end of the experiment the would that
received prays healed 2 times faster than normal wounds. Both groups
were gather and told the truth and all were AWED :-)
Healing energy transmitted? could be... we don't order individually ever
muscle fiber to do and exact amount of effort to move our body, we give
"general orders" this could be one... for me... it came from God, as a
gift all humans have, or as spiritual people receiving healing powers
from God, what ever, I believe it came from God.
Some others short example could be Mother lifting 1+ Ton. car in flames
to save her son, and stuff that has no rational explanation but
intervention of a Creator, like a father taking care of His(/She/Its)
children. I've read/heard/seen(on TV) many testimonials of people
blessed by God that clears the doubt and puts a sense of belief on me.
I only recommend religion/spirituality because sometimes the world is
cruelly unmerciful, and people loose hope, faith, even the will to do
things or even live, because this reality can't be it, I resist that
idea, for many reasons, so much suffering and struggle in life has to
pay a better faith than just cease to exist, my life has to worth
something else, has to be a testimony and a justification of my
existence on this planet and the goodness and wrongness of my deeds and
misdeeds, IT HAS BE/MEAN MORE!
Maybe is a necessary voluntary mass brain wash for some of us, to relief
pain and daily burden of our normal troublesome existence, like smoking
or taking a beer but I feel, my reason says my feeling is OK and then I
believe in this Divine Power, in my daily life, in my good deeds on
unexpected rewards that later you realize later it has to be from God
because there is a connection.
I believe He is out there, watching us, with love, with caring, with
goodness, like a father to his 3 year old child :-)
Why God then doesn't get us all that we want? because what we need is
enough. Comes to my mind a song: Rolling Stones - You can't always get
what you want.
Peace brothers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> OK Darren, I see how you see me now, and I'm not a pretentious
> religious/spiritual prick
You are again conflating religion and spirituality in an inappropriate way.
You're being as annoying in this post as you would be if you were a
Christian walking up to a Jew and telling him he's neither spiritual nor
religious just because he hasn't accepted Jesus in his life. Do you see
where I'm coming from?
I believe in spirituality. I have thought about these things long and hard
for many years. I've studied what others have said.
I believe in souls, immaterial things that define who you are and help
control your behavior and provide the spiritual part of your life, that
reside in your body and flee when you die, and that guides your morality. I
believe in a limited form of life after death. I just don't believe any of
this needs a supernatural explanation or an invisible sky daddy. I believe
in a completely rational and materialistic explanation for these things
that's fairly easy to express at a surface level and which can be (and to
some extent has been) measured scientifically.
I simply take offense at religious people who do *not* understand their
soul, their god, and their religion telling me that being rational and
scientific prevents me from being spiritual.
> assuming too much and for that I apologize.
No problem. I also apologize for sounding like I didn't recognize your good
intentions. It's that whole "road to hell" part that is the problem, tho.
> was never to offend or humiliate anyone or anyone's beliefs if I did,
> again, I sincerely beg your pardon.
Understand that you haven't offended me. I recognize your good intentions,
and I'm simply trying to explain why you might offend someone you said these
things to who hasn't already forgiven you for them. :)
> just I believe that there is a spiritual world and yes I'd like you to
> see it and believe it too,
But I've already told you I see it and believe it. You're just not believing
that's true because I don't believe in your diety.
> And this is the breaking point I think because nobody can actually show
> it to you or anybody else and is only rational to not believe is such a
> world,
Depending on what "such a world" you speak of, it may or may not be irrational.
> All I'm writing about it is that is not something you think and you
> find, see?
How do you know?
And even if it isn't, what makes you think a spiritual world isn't one you
can investigate rationally?
> Those are only other's experiences until something happens to you and
> you know that you were blind to some stuff that were there the whole
> time,
Yes. Oddly enough, the same is true of a bad drug trip. :)
> YES, YOU CAN ALWAYS QUESTION IT, and ultimately discard it for a
> rational explanation or not enough evidence
And I have.
> but if you actually go for
> the facts and don't get stuck so much of the how it happened, you can
> see yourself changed by that experience and became a believer,
Right. So it's OK to think about it and question it and ultimately discard
it. But I'm wrong, because I haven't become a believer.
> you experienced something that no rational thinking can explain not even
> your own.
Here's the difference. I don't feel the need to explain everything that
happened to me or the rest of the universe. I would rather have no answer
and say "I don't know" than make up a useless and incorrect answer.
If someone asks me how many white cars are on the continent of Africa right
now, I'd far rather say "I don't know" than to say "I'll ask God and get
back to you." Wouldn't you?
> Darren, I'm just describing here what mostly happened to me and other
> spiritual/religious people, I'm not saying: "this is an irrefutable
> deduction and if you don't agree with it then you are some kind of
> retarded moron".
>
> For rational thinking is endless nebula that never clears,
Because it's impossible to come to the right conclusion simply by thinking
rationally about it? In the first paragraph, you say you don't want to
imply those who aren't religious are insufficiently intelligent. In the next
sentence, you say "it's impossible for a rational person, no matter how
smart, to have better answers than a believer."
> If you experienced other religious and/or spiritual situations which I
> don't know of and still you find yourself an Atheist it may well such a
> world be inexistent. That and other stuff will be known when we die, so
> is not something
I already believe in life after death, and I'm an atheist. So?
> I think nobody but yourself can get you to a spiritual world, once you
> experience it you know is there.
Yet, because I don't believe in your God, you disregard my repeated
statements that I am already in a spiritual world, and even posted links,
continuing to speak as if I'm missing something. Simply because I *know* how
spirituality works, rather than making up stories that make no sense.
> One "proof" of spirituality could be this experiment made to prove the
> healing power of prayers(was an International news on TV you probaly
> have saw it):
No. I'd enjoy seeing a link to any actual scientific proofs of the efficacy
of prayer on healing. So far, I've not seen any such thing.
> Some others short example could be Mother lifting 1+ Ton. car in flames
> to save her son, and stuff that has no rational explanation but
> intervention of a Creator,
Are you saying that the intervention of a Creator is the only rational
explanation? Or are you saying there's no rational explanation, so it must
have been a Creator?
> I only recommend religion/spirituality because sometimes the world is
> cruelly unmerciful, and people loose hope, faith, even the will to do
> things or even live, because this reality can't be it, I resist that
> idea, for many reasons, so much suffering and struggle in life has to
> pay a better faith than just cease to exist, my life has to worth
> something else, has to be a testimony and a justification of my
> existence on this planet and the goodness and wrongness of my deeds and
> misdeeds, IT HAS BE/MEAN MORE!
It sounds to me like you're the one afraid to face rationality, actually,
rather than me being the one afraid to face the possibility of spirituality.
I used to be afraid of the world, thinking there must be more than there is.
Then I figured out how the world works, and now I don't fear that stuff any
more.
> Maybe is a necessary voluntary mass brain wash for some of us, to relief
> pain and daily burden of our normal troublesome existence,
I believe that's the source of much belief in personal deities.
> I believe He is out there, watching us, with love, with caring, with
> goodness, like a father to his 3 year old child :-)
I'm glad it's comforting. I feel that you should understand that such a
situation is not necessarily comforting to someone who has come to different
conclusions about life, just like the idea that Jesus died for your sins
isn't particularly comforting to a Buddhist monk.
> Peace brothers.
And I thank you for your reasonable discussions. :-)
--
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 14-Jan-09 2:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>
> andrel, the Bible was written as "poetry" in some points to better
> describe God deeds, so you are taking it the wrong way.
Thanks, I was sort of aware of that. I haven't got the slightest idea
why you think that would be a relevant remark, though. Was it something
I said?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am not always happy with the style of Patrick but I myself have never
been able to let two persons that seem to take the bible as the Word of
God admit that there is a context to the bible. Not even that but even a
condemnation of selective quoting. So, a deep bow to Patrick by me. And
of course a deep bow of respect to Warp and Saul. I never fully realized
that even the theists are different in p.o-t.
On 14-Jan-09 1:46, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover,
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
>
> Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
>
> You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
>
> Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
>
> But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-Jan-09 10:30, Saul Luizaga wrote:
[snip]
If I read this I get the impression that you moved from a 'standard'
Christian faith to a gnostic version, is that correct?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover,
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
>
> Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
>
> You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
>
> Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
>
> But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
>
Oh, sorry, did I fail to mention that part of "reading it cover to
cover", usually entails them going, "This makes no sense", and thus...
reading the contextual data about the time periods and ideas people had
when its parts where written? Silly me. I kind of assumed that was a given.
That said, why is some modern priests claims about what people thought
or believed back then more valid than the people that wrote back then,
or the historical and archaeological evidence from then, or... pretty
much 100% of everything that both the average church goer, *and* 90% of
the priesthood never *ever* read either? You will find that, in most
case, if someone brings up a quote, those "radical atheists" you seem to
think don't get it can not just quote a passage, they can tell you when,
how, under what circumstances, and fairly often, even what the
"original" untranslated text said, and why thus the modern version
contradicts, in many cases, the original meaning, not to mention how
little sense the ancient version made itself, in context of anything
other than its own mythology.
Case in point, somethings as simple as "taking the lords name in
vein."/cursing The modern interpretation is Protestant, and lumps
anything from references to bodily functions, to saying 'damn it', into
the same category. Its the interpretation that almost all Christians
support are factual, including nearly all priests. A few take an older
variation of it, which makes cuss words just some category of things
"God" doesn't like, while "real" cursing is reserved for using gods
name, but again, in "any" context that doesn't involve praising him. A
tiny few actually understand the original context, and, despite still
being all fainty over cuss words, apply prayers to the purpose of... I
am not sure what, since I never understood what the point of going, "I
lost my job, have cancer, will probably die in less than five years, but
praise you for being up there and let thy will be done!", does that is
at all useful. In that old "original" context, the kinds of
interventionist prayer that nearly all Christians follow, in which they
pray to their god to help them find a new crib for the coming baby, or
cure their cancer, or ask god to put a stop to the actions of some
terrorists, or even for him to "strike down those who are unjust",
**all** fall into the original principle of "taking his name in vein and
cursing", by which you attempt to cajole, conjure, command, or demand of
ones god that he "do something" for you. You are not supposed to do
that, according to the *original* meaning, but probably less than 20% of
supposed Christians bother to understand the original text, context, or
meaning, so as to realize this, and that *includes* priests.
So, yeah. You are absolutely right. Its not a self contained text. The
problem is, examining it in the "correct" context tends to make it a)
more obviously a myth, b) more obviously made up to support tribal
ambitions, not as a factual source, and c) often "undermines" all modern
presumptions about what its god is like, wants people to do, or his
willingness to reward/forgive various actions. Not that (a) isn't
sufficient reason, by itself, to set in on the shelf next to Tolkien's
books, instead of your copy of "How to Build a Shelf".
--
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:
> Darren New wrote:
> Patrick, I apologize if I offended you. Let me tell you that you can't
> find God, God finds you IF you actually are looking to meet Him/Her/It.
> You write like you actually don't care about spirituality but you care
> enough to write a justification about its inexistence, so maybe you feel
> the spiritual vibe but not in a classical way but your own...
Oddly, I don't believe we where talking "at all" about spirituality.
That is I think the crux of the problem. You think the concept is
derived from the "existence" of a God, never mind that you also will
probably agree that Buddhists are spiritual, while failing to grasp that
it wasn't until years after his death that a sub-cult developed that
tried to make him into a god, while his original teachings deny the
existence of gods as much as any atheist. I think you are making a
category error. Its much like Plato said in his famous play about
Socrates, in which a man approaches Socrates to talk about the "moral"
basis for turning his father in for the murder of another, and Socrates
sends him twisting around himself, unable to logically prove that you
need a god to determine what is right and wrong, or even that what a god
thought as right was, or thought was wrong was, or that such a god
deciding to change his mind would "somehow" make right wrong, and wrong
right. Mind, Plato's answer was that right and wrong in "ingrained" in
the universe itself somehow, and so that, even if the gods didn't agree
on right and wrong, some things would "always" be right, and others
"always" wrong. Unfortunately, history tend to show otherwise, in that
civilizations happily label what ever is convenient for them as "right",
and inconvenient for them "wrong", with little regard for the effect
doing so really has on anyone, including themselves, in the long run.
The only things that have appeared to be universal have been things
found in animals as well, and even then, the best that can be said about
humanity is that we have "lost" some things, in gaining better ability
to apply those. But, it comes with a trade off. It might be a "lot"
better for use if we could "smell" how healthy a potential mate was,
but, its seems, we traded the organ that detected pheromones distinctly
for "better color vision". And that trade off leads to a whole mess of
idiocies, social hangups, genetic diversity/disease issues, and other
problems that are far less common in other animals. Oops!
--
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:
>> One more thing there are things that only God can provide and yes
>> somehow it shapes your perception of "spirituality, sense of
>> beauty, or their knowledge of good and evil"... Makes them better... :-)
>
> Hmmm... Hard to understand what you mean without the punctuation, but
> I'm inclined to disagree.
>
Think it is, again, a category error. I value "my" TV more than TVs in
general. In a sense, having a "personal" connection to the universe,
instead of just being something "in it", would make the experience "more
valuable" in the same way. Logic tends to dash this perception to
pieces, in that, if you are being honest, any TV that is identical to
your own would be just the same, presuming someone snuck into your
house, removed your old one, then replaced it with an identical one. You
likely wouldn't even notice the difference, unless the volume was higher
or lower than you remembered. Yet, there is still an entirely
"artificial" value to the idea that you "own", or are "connected to"
something else. This is what religion "gives" people. And its the
hardest thing to give up, because they can't imagine making a similar
connection with something else, which has the same "value" as they have
placed on this equally artificial connection they feel they have already.
So, yes, there is a "value" that come with it, which you don't have
without it. But, I am betting that, if you could do the same thing with
it, as you could with the TV (while sadly impractical), they wouldn't
know the difference either.
--
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:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And, no, you are the one confusing wishful thinking with the idea that
>> just because you find "comfort" in an idea it has to be "right". How
>> often is that "ever" true in the real world?
>
> More than you or any other Atheist would ever be willing to admit, I
> have a pragmatical logic too but there are things that when you analyze
> them has subtle spiritual features if you are willing to admit such a
> possibility, not for spirituality it self, nor for religion nor science
> but fir truth sake. I believe there is more than meets the eye and more
> than science in the Universe.
>
I spent years "looking" for those features, and occasionally, almost,
convincing myself I had found them. Stop telling me what I have, did,
would, or can do.
> Finally I'm sorry but I won't read what the Atheist ex-Priest wrote
> since I think Atheist are short sighted spiritually and they just
> speak/write from that POV, maybe later as a curiosity.
Very.. Open minded of you. Oh, wait, no, I mean the other word.
Seriously, what they hell make you think that your opinion of what you
"think" atheists are like gives you the right to imply that none of them
can have anything useful to say on the subject. Nothing you have said to
this point has truly offended me, but hand waving away a willingness to
examine someone else's opinion, based solely on your own preconceptions
of the "short sightedness" of someone's "spiritual" views? No, I would
argue instead that you have narrowed the definition of what *can be*
spiritual so much that anything that isn't about **your** kind of
spirituality gets "automatically" defined as "shallow", but its like
listening to some old geezer tell me I am clueless because I don't think
that Andy Griffith was the "pinnacle" of television, and that everything
after, including everything made in other countries, has all been useless.
--
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 wrote:
> Oddly, I don't believe we where talking "at all" about spirituality.
Yeah, that's kind of my beef too.
> it wasn't until years after his death that a sub-cult developed that
> tried to make him into a god
600 years or so, actually.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
(I use the term "personal sky daddy" as a mildly derogatory way of referring
to the generic supernatural deity that has a personal interest in your
well-being and behavior, rather than a generic "god that created the
universe" kind of thing. This tends to forstall the silly "what if god
created physics and then let everything take its course" kind of arguments.)
--
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:
> To get a pragmatic POV about religion from a true Priest I advice to see
> a scene of the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven (2005)' in which a Priest that
> was about to go into a certain-death battle addresses his last words to
> the main Character (Legolas in Lord of The Rings, can't remember his name).
>
> Those words and "never take compassion away from your heart" have set my
> spiritual path for life.
This has what to do with anything? I mean, other than the vast number of
the faithful that show about as much "compassion" to anyone different to
them as most students do dissecting a frog in biology classes (or to
those that differ from them on the play ground). Hell, if it "at least"
addressed the point of the article I linked to, it might mean
"something", but since you refuse to read that anyway, its... I don't
know what it is, except of another, "You can't have X without Y.",
argument, in which the presupposition of Y is used to incorrectly derive
the assertion.
--
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:
> To get a pragmatic POV about religion from a true Priest
Problem one: phrasing this in a way that implies that disagreement with the
words of this priest means you aren't religious. How about a little
humility, like "to get a pragmatic idea of what *I* believe in
religion-wise, ...."
Problem two: A pragmatic point of view of a fictional character is far from
pragmatic in view of Proposition 8, the Gaza strip, Muslim suicide bombers,
abortion center doctor murderers, and Danish cartoonists, just to name a
few. Sure, it might be the case that this fictional depiction of the wonders
of religion is inspirational, but somehow I feel that for some reason most
of the adherents of these monotheistic faiths have somehow lost that whole
brotherly-love kind of thing going on.
> the main Character (Legolas in Lord of The Rings, can't remember his name).
For the first couple of readings, I thought "he gets his spiritual advice
from Lord of the Rings"?? Before I realized you meant the actor. :-)
> Those words and "never take compassion away from your heart" have set my
> spiritual path for life.
Because, you know, the God that recommends murdering loving gay people and
punishes people and animals forever for things *our* secular justice system
says they're incompetent to be punished for is so compassionate.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You have nailed me in the center of my forth head. As I mentioned before
on some other post I've moved from Catholic Roman Christian to
"Jew"-Christian, or just Christian, no denomination or church. A little
Gnostic too, yes, since I wont' buy the gibberish the Vatican shoves to
their followers; I wanna have a conversation with God and I want to
Follow him as He tells me I should do, in other words: the closest God
considers is the good path, but as the Bible has been manipulated over
centuries I have doubts about it, so I'm doing what I can to find that
path, even that means learn from other non-Christian people, even
Atheists or Gnostics(they are helpful at saying what is not divine :-)
so they help me to make small corrections to my path/beliefs).
In Short, I'm searching the truth... about God... that implicitly tells
me how to follow him (most Religions fail at this purpose, ironically).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Was fun to discuss with you Andrew, I wish all my discussion could be as
rational and emotionally balanced as this one. Anyway I think we
shouldn't take this conversation any further because I think is not the
proper place for it and we have settle our points of views, plus I don't
want to be the root of more polemic attitudes/subjects, but I'd like to
discuss about spirituality with you in some more appropriate place.
You're welcome and I thank you for yours :-D
P.S.
Power of prayer:
-http://sandracarrington-smith.blogspot.com/2008/07/healing-power-of-prayer-and-positive.html
- Scientific proof that prayer:
workshttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread2597/pg1
The other side of the coin:
Study fails to show healing power of prayer:
https://www.divinecosmos.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7463
Google searches:
http://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+proofs+of+the+efficacy+of+prayer+on+healing&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=mozilla&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
experiment to show the power of prayer on healing
Have fun :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
> Power of prayer:
>
-http://sandracarrington-smith.blogspot.com/2008/07/healing-power-of-prayer-and-positive.html
>
> - Scientific proof that prayer:
> workshttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread2597/pg1
I'll check it out.
--
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:
> Power of prayer:
>
http://sandracarrington-smith.blogspot.com/2008/07/healing-power-of-prayer-and-positive.html
Heresay from a mystic believer, with mysticism mixed in. No actual scientif
evidence presented other than anecdotes.
> - Scientific proof that prayer:
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread2597/pg1
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.
--
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 15-Jan-09 2:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You have nailed me in the center of my forth head. As I mentioned before
> on some other post I've moved from Catholic Roman Christian to
> "Jew"-Christian, or just Christian, no denomination or church. A little
> Gnostic too, yes, since I wont' buy the gibberish the Vatican shoves to
> their followers; I wanna have a conversation with God and I want to
> Follow him as He tells me I should do, in other words: the closest God
> considers is the good path, but as the Bible has been manipulated over
> centuries I have doubts about it, so I'm doing what I can to find that
> path, even that means learn from other non-Christian people, even
> Atheists or Gnostics(they are helpful at saying what is not divine :-)
> so they help me to make small corrections to my path/beliefs).
Gnosis is not in all interpretations incompatible with being a
Christian. There are even those ...
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. ;)
--
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:
> Because, you know, the God that recommends murdering loving gay people
> and punishes people and animals forever for things *our* secular justice
> system says they're incompetent to be punished for is so compassionate.
>
Reminds me of something someone else said in reference to the whole ID
thing. Some of them have figured out that they can't bully a god into
the thing if that god "created" everything as is. Either that, of they
keep missing each other memos. Some of them, on a site called 'Uncommon
Descent' recently, in the midst of banning posters and deleting comments
that told them they where wrong, and why, wrote about an article that
suggested that "Species have the 'latent potential' for more than what
it currently possible, and thus things like increases in oxygen and
result in those latent potentials being expressed." This is simply
saying that, if a species "could be" 10 feet tall, but it is only 5 feet
tall, more oxygen, which would help them metabolize food more
efficiently, thus allowing them to get to 10 feet. This is a huge
"Duh!", in some respects, since you can see body size differences in
people, do to "nothing" more than if they are living where they have
abundant food, as apposed to where they have little. UD interpreted this
as "front loading". I.e., genes that where "preset" to activate, to
produce some species later on. Same bunch also insist that God shows up
to "tweak" things, all the time.
The question posed was, "What kind of incompetent, supposedly
omni-potent, omni-present, and all loving god **can't** set the whole
thing up to run without him, but has to show up like a software
engineer, looking for bugs, to 'tweak' thinks, as they go wrong?"
Or, as someone else put it:
Omni-present, Omni-potent, and Omni-benevolent. Pick two!
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
