A few people a long time ago made some separate but nonsensical claims, the effect of logical fallacies, inappropriate critical thinking, perceptive errors, etc. These are then told to their children at that vulnerable age at which they believe all that they are told, like:

Digging a canal from a river to our fields is essential.
If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.
U should not steal from others and u should respect all elders.
U should aim the arrow higher when hunting to compensate for gravity.

The child has no idea that statement no 2 is crap. And If there's a eclipse when he was in a heretic mood, the belief will be so strong nothing can shake it. He will then, with even more conviction, relate the same thing to his child, the eclipse episode no added to the myth. We have an early beginning of a religion.

What makes the situation worse is that religion, once formed is remarkable able to handle all aspects of opposition. One is reminded of Dawkin's idea of Memetic evolution of culture. In religion, faith or blind acceptance of god is considered a virtue. Even if some evidence is presented, its horribly biased and twisted. The spread of faith or evangelism is considered a great thing to do. Plus, belonging to the faith has claimed advantages like loss of fear of death, beautiful eternal fun, a personal superman helper, etc. On the other hand, loss of faith is forbidden and claimed punishable by lovely things like eternal suffering, burning, pain and a charming companion called the devil [or some version thereof].

Add to this the fact that religions have these amazing social events like mass, congregations, ceremonies, etc which provide social bonding, fun and a sense of security and a smug pride in being the 'ones' and one can see how easily religion can maintain its grip even in the face of reason and rationality and the wonders of modern science.

And so the vicious cycle continues, parents tell their children what their parents told them and the children do the same with their own offspring. Money hungry institutions and power thirsty people also help continue the circle of indoctrination. Poor babies, threatened with eternal fire and asked to give up [or twist or make exceptions in] the reasoning capablities they havent even delevoped yet.

A few people a long time ago made some separate but nonsensical claims, the effect of logical fallacies, inappropriate critical thinking, perceptive errors, etc. These are then told to their children at that vulnerable age at which they believe all that they are told, like:

Digging a canal from a river to our fields is essential.
If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.
U should not steal from others and u should respect all elders.
U should aim the arrow higher when hunting to compensate for gravity.

The child has no idea that statement no 2 is crap. And If there's a eclipse when he was in a heretic mood, the belief will be so strong nothing can shake it. He will then, with even more conviction, relate the same thing to his child, the eclipse episode no added to the myth. We have an early beginning of a religion.

What makes the situation worse is that religion, once formed is remarkable able to handle all aspects of opposition. One is reminded of Dawkin's idea of Memetic evolution of culture. In religion, faith or blind acceptance of god is considered a virtue. Even if some evidence is presented, its horribly biased and twisted. The spread of faith or evangelism is considered a great thing to do. Plus, belonging to the faith has claimed advantages like loss of fear of death, beautiful eternal fun, a personal superman helper, etc. On the other hand, loss of faith is forbidden and claimed punishable by lovely things like eternal suffering, burning, pain and a charming companion called the devil [or some version thereof].

Add to this the fact that religions have these amazing social events like mass, congregations, ceremonies, etc which provide social bonding, fun and a sense of security and a smug pride in being the 'ones' and one can see how easily religion can maintain its grip even in the face of reason and rationality and the wonders of modern science.

And so the vicious cycle continues, parents tell their children what their parents told them and the children do the same with their own offspring. Money hungry institutions and power thirsty people also help continue the circle of indoctrination. Poor babies, threatened with eternal fire and asked to give up [or twist or make exceptions in] the reasoning capablities they havent even delevoped yet.


What a load of bollocks. :rolleyes:


jan.

A few people a long time ago made some separate but nonsensical claims, the effect of logical fallacies, inappropriate critical thinking, perceptive errors, etc. These are then told to their children at that vulnerable age at which they believe all that they are told, like:

Digging a canal from a river to our fields is essential.
If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.
U should not steal from others and u should respect all elders.
U should aim the arrow higher when hunting to compensate for gravity.

The child has no idea that statement no 2 is crap. And If there's a eclipse when he was in a heretic mood, the belief will be so strong nothing can shake it. He will then, with even more conviction, relate the same thing to his child, the eclipse episode no added to the myth. We have an early beginning of a religion.

What makes the situation worse is that religion, once formed is remarkable able to handle all aspects of opposition. One is reminded of Dawkin's idea of Memetic evolution of culture. In religion, faith or blind acceptance of god is considered a virtue. Even if some evidence is presented, its horribly biased and twisted. The spread of faith or evangelism is considered a great thing to do. Plus, belonging to the faith has claimed advantages like loss of fear of death, beautiful eternal fun, a personal superman helper, etc. On the other hand, loss of faith is forbidden and claimed punishable by lovely things like eternal suffering, burning, pain and a charming companion called the devil [or some version thereof].

Add to this the fact that religions have these amazing social events like mass, congregations, ceremonies, etc which provide social bonding, fun and a sense of security and a smug pride in being the 'ones' and one can see how easily religion can maintain its grip even in the face of reason and rationality and the wonders of modern science.

And so the vicious cycle continues, parents tell their children what their parents told them and the children do the same with their own offspring. Money hungry institutions and power thirsty people also help continue the circle of indoctrination. Poor babies, threatened with eternal fire and asked to give up [or twist or make exceptions in] the reasoning capabilities they haven't even developed yet.

I like the way you are thinking on this subject. Religion may have been necessary in our primitive past, but now it's just dangerous and plain wrong.

A few people a long time ago made some separate but nonsensical claims, the effect of logical fallacies, inappropriate critical thinking, perceptive errors, etc. These are then told to their children at that vulnerable age at which they believe all that they are told, like:

Digging a canal from a river to our fields is essential.
If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.
U should not steal from others and u should respect all elders.
U should aim the arrow higher when hunting to compensate for gravity.

The child has no idea that statement no 2 is crap. And If there's a eclipse when he was in a heretic mood, the belief will be so strong nothing can shake it. He will then, with even more conviction, relate the same thing to his child, the eclipse episode no added to the myth. We have an early beginning of a religion.

What makes the situation worse is that religion, once formed is remarkable able to handle all aspects of opposition. One is reminded of Dawkin's idea of Memetic evolution of culture. In religion, faith or blind acceptance of god is considered a virtue. Even if some evidence is presented, its horribly biased and twisted. The spread of faith or evangelism is considered a great thing to do. Plus, belonging to the faith has claimed advantages like loss of fear of death, beautiful eternal fun, a personal superman helper, etc. On the other hand, loss of faith is forbidden and claimed punishable by lovely things like eternal suffering, burning, pain and a charming companion called the devil [or some version thereof].

Add to this the fact that religions have these amazing social events like mass, congregations, ceremonies, etc which provide social bonding, fun and a sense of security and a smug pride in being the 'ones' and one can see how easily religion can maintain its grip even in the face of reason and rationality and the wonders of modern science.

And so the vicious cycle continues, parents tell their children what their parents told them and the children do the same with their own offspring. Money hungry institutions and power thirsty people also help continue the circle of indoctrination. Poor babies, threatened with eternal fire and asked to give up [or twist or make exceptions in] the reasoning capablities they havent even delevoped yet.

Can you participate in something different then bashing religion ?

I like the way you are thinking on this subject. Religion may have been necessary in our primitive past, but now it's just dangerous and plain wrong.



Why wrong ? Remember USA is not the world there are other country . You remove religion from there there would be a bigger disaster then thy have now. Have you see the procession in Mexico , your neighbor ? Check it out

Why wrong ? Remember USA is not the world there are other country . You remove religion from there there would be a bigger disaster then thy have now. Have you see the procession in Mexico , your neighbor ? Check it out

Good leadership doesn't require religion. I always believe the truth about reality is the best policy and religion sells lies. In the modern world I don't see any upside to religion.

What a load of bollocks. :rolleyes:


jan.

I think it is a good expression of doubt.
I agree with at least half of it. Faith and doubt often go together.
It's certainly not bollocks.

But they were sacrificing bullocks, were they not?
It was a load of bullocks.

Vicious circle? To a degree, but it's a damped response, so some of the worst oscillations have died down.

For some of the recent ringing, I would cite the claims by certain religious members and leaders that God levels entire communities (Katrina, Haiti, Japan etc.) by shaking the earth and setting the wind and tide in motion.

This was reputedly for fornication, homosexuality, just generally being bad.

Last year He was messing with Iceland, but only to punish the holiday travelers in Europe. (The Lord does work in mysterious ways.)

So that type of thinking resonates back to ancient writings that reflect on how to appease the god or gods by sacrifice of said bullocks. ;)

Good leadership doesn't require religion. I always believe the truth about reality is the best policy and religion sells lies. In the modern world I don't see any upside to religion.



Name a country with good leadership were all citizen are satisfied .....
Religion is a good buffer for the society
I believe you take religion out of this country you will need more Jail , and more police . You like or not The fear of God brings a lot of tranquility for the society. We have now plenty of gang banger which most of them are religious drop off, who dont have a fear of God

If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.

Provide a citation for this from actual scriptures.

Otherwise, you are just making things up.

I think it is a good expression of doubt.


No. It's reason for the OP poster and anyone who agrees with him to take a course in critical thinking.

Provide a citation for this from actual scriptures.

Otherwise, you are just making things up.

Making things up? You've never read any ancient history?



Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. It is practiced by adherents of many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature.

citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice

And you see the traces of that kind of superstition here:

(citing Revelation):

There occurs a great earthquake where "the sun becomes black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon like blood" (6:12).
The stars of heaven fall to the earth and the sky recedes like a scroll being rolled up (6:13-14).
Every mountain and island is moved out of place (6:14).
The people of earth retreat to caves in the mountains (6:15).
The survivors call upon the mountains and the rocks to fall on them, so as to hide them from the "wrath of the Lamb" (6:16).

Lamb, not goat, but same same.

Acts 7:42-

But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: “‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?

There are something like 27 references in the bible to sacrificing goats.

Isaiah 34:6
The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood, it is covered with fat— the blood of lambs and goats, fat from the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.

Reminds me of Arlo Guthrie screaming "I wanna KILL" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzFJxX8yoY)

Acts 7:42-

But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: “‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?



What is that you want from religious people , do they ask you for bread for money , do you give any money ?

Do organization of your nature offer any thing to needy people in the world ?
Are your organization drilling wells for water in Africa ?
You only want to criticize, it probably isa because you feel guilty of something. And so by bitching you are taking the load of yourself .

@aracua and Jan, do u not realise that I have only just been a atheist for like a couple of weeks. I dont want to bash religion, I am just trying to understand, form ideas and get ur opinions on things I have never questioned before. If any1 is offended, I apologise.

Good leadership doesn't require religion. I always believe the truth about reality is the best policy and religion sells lies. In the modern world I don't see any upside to religion.

I would agree with aracua that people are not yet ready to be atheists or non religious. I am a teen, without a care in the world to take comfort from a deity, but most people aren't like that. I have spent quite some time learning logic and modern science, someting most people dont [its necessary that something fills in for the hole left in your life by loss of religion]. So I would hold that over the next 3 decades the world should become more secular and less attentive to religion. Anyway it happens, we can safely bet that religion will be extinct in 500 years.

Provide a citation for this from actual scriptures.

Otherwise, you are just making things up.

I will do even better. The mayans or actezs [I amnt sure which] sacrificed humans, lying them on slabs and cutting out thier hearts, lifting the still beating hearts to the sky for the sun god. The worse part, they had eclipses!

@aracua and Jan, do u not realise that I have only just been a atheist for like a couple of weeks. I dont want to bash religion, I am just trying to understand, form ideas and get ur opinions on things I have never questioned before. If any1 is offended, I apologise.


Then you're way of base.
Don't use your experience of theism to tar everything.
The questions you should be asking is, were you atheist all along.
It is more about you, your personal and social life/up-bringing which is the
problem, not theism.


jan.

Then you're way of base.
Don't use your experience of theism to tar everything.
The questions you should be asking is, were you atheist all along.
It is more about you, your personal and social life/up-bringing which is the
problem, not theism.


jan.

But I already know:
Myself and my journey of self discovery.
My personal life and upbringing.
Advantages of religion.

So this is the only part [negative impacts of religion] I am uncertain on. Do think bcoz of this that I am baised against religion. I know the other sides, but due to reverance I never looked at bad things in religion, which is what I am doing now.

May I suggest this this to everyone here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111479

The book of what ever christianity claims to is written in the blood of saints, and apostles, and prophets, and the one Messiah Jesus Christ. Religion has no meaning to a faithful.

I never looked at bad things in religion, which is what I am doing now.

You're just ranting.
There is nothing about ''religion'' in your opening post, much like your
other thread.


jan.

Making things up? You've never read any ancient history?

/and other posts on this/

Where does it say


If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.

??


The scriptures speak of solar eclipses, and they speak of animal sacrifice.

But the ones you quoted don't say anywhere that the belief was that if they don't sacrifice animals, the sun won't rise.

Again, produce a scripture that actually states


If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.

@aracua and Jan, do u not realise that I have only just been a atheist for like a couple of weeks. I dont want to bash religion, I am just trying to understand, form ideas and get ur opinions on things I have never questioned before. If any1 is offended, I apologise.

This -


A few people a long time ago made some separate but nonsensical claims, the effect of logical fallacies, inappropriate critical thinking, perceptive errors, etc. These are then told to their children at that vulnerable age at which they believe all that they are told, like:

Digging a canal from a river to our fields is essential.
If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.
U should not steal from others and u should respect all elders.
U should aim the arrow higher when hunting to compensate for gravity.

The child has no idea that statement no 2 is crap. And If there's a eclipse when he was in a heretic mood, the belief will be so strong nothing can shake it. He will then, with even more conviction, relate the same thing to his child, the eclipse episode no added to the myth. We have an early beginning of a religion.

What makes the situation worse is that religion, once formed is remarkable able to handle all aspects of opposition. One is reminded of Dawkin's idea of Memetic evolution of culture. In religion, faith or blind acceptance of god is considered a virtue. Even if some evidence is presented, its horribly biased and twisted. The spread of faith or evangelism is considered a great thing to do. Plus, belonging to the faith has claimed advantages like loss of fear of death, beautiful eternal fun, a personal superman helper, etc. On the other hand, loss of faith is forbidden and claimed punishable by lovely things like eternal suffering, burning, pain and a charming companion called the devil [or some version thereof].

Add to this the fact that religions have these amazing social events like mass, congregations, ceremonies, etc which provide social bonding, fun and a sense of security and a smug pride in being the 'ones' and one can see how easily religion can maintain its grip even in the face of reason and rationality and the wonders of modern science.

And so the vicious cycle continues, parents tell their children what their parents told them and the children do the same with their own offspring. Money hungry institutions and power thirsty people also help continue the circle of indoctrination. Poor babies, threatened with eternal fire and asked to give up [or twist or make exceptions in] the reasoning capablities they havent even delevoped yet.

is not an attempt to understand.

Religion will eventually kill a bunch of people again then another "true religion" will arise and then were more in the end of the world.

This -



is not an attempt to understand.

Yes, it is. Despite the fact that I am harsh to religion, I am trying to understand,
how superstitions build up into systems.
how children incorporate them as fact.
how religion has safeguards agaisnt leaving them.
how difficult it is to let go and how lucrative it is to convert.

You're just ranting.
There is nothing about ''religion'' in your opening post, much like your
other thread.


jan.

Its all about religion. Superstitions build up, become institutional. Thats how religions develop.

produce a scripture that actually states

Idk if it actually states that, its an example of how religion demands sacrifice in exchange of a reward.

The evangelical movement is a massive, seething threat to sanity, science and rationality. I have rarely seen a more abysmally dim collection of rejects from a fallout zone. They epitomize the sensation of the absence of thought.

But I already know:
Myself and my journey of self discovery.
My personal life and upbringing.
Advantages of religion.

So this is the only part [negative impacts of religion] I am uncertain on. Do think bcoz of this that I am baised against religion. I know the other sides, but due to reverance I never looked at bad things in religion, which is what I am doing now.

Are you now abetter person, filled more with kindness , helpful to other people , or just indifferent to man kind ?

Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. It is practiced by adherents of many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature.

Doesn't medical research still perform this animal sacrifice practice. It tries to appease the gods of disease and fear, by attempting to alter the course of nature in synthetic way. It is all how you look at it. Could medicine appease fear without animal sacrifices?

Medicine doesn't appease fear with animal sacrifices, chief.

The evangelical movement is a massive, seething threat to sanity, science and rationality. I have rarely seen a more abysmally dim collection of rejects from a fallout zone. They epitomize the sensation of the absence of thought.



Are you saying that you are sane and I am insane .

I am glad for evangelism and that it con-ways the fear of God . I would realy be concerned if all those people would be fearless of God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkq7PLmGtQ&feature=related

Idk if it actually states that, its an example of how religion demands sacrifice in exchange of a reward.

Not good enough.

Cite an exact reference that states


If u don’t sacrifice a goat the sun wont rise.

Are you saying that you are sane and I am insane .

I am glad for evangelism and that it con-ways the fear of God . I would realy be concerned if all those people would be fearless of God


con-ways


What a word!
English isn't your first language, is it?

Do you know what a "con" is?

Have you any idea what you just said above?!

Its all about religion. Superstitions build up, become institutional. Thats how religions develop.

You are very young.

I am glad for evangelism and that it con-ways the fear of God . I would realy be concerned if all those people would be fearless of God

When I was a child I was towed to a movie shown by evangelicals in my neighborhood community center by my grandma, who really just wanted an excuse to get out of the house.
The movie they showed little kids (I was 9, others were smaller) was of a teenage girl left behind when everyone she knew was raptured away...
I was crying in fear by the end of the movie, none of the kids looked happy.
Putting aside the appropriateness of terrorizing small children with the potential disappearance of their entire family...

This ended up really souring me feeling any connection to Christianity later, when I became mature enough to think about such things, and it's so enmeshed in the culture around me that not being able to even muster a wishy-washy acceptance...well, it does not help matters.
If instead, I had been told "God is love," and gotten the affection I didn't get at home...THAT would have worked, or at least not left me feeling frightened, angry, and resentful. But they chose to try to "frighten the Hell out of me."
The intolerance and illogic of these people really grates on me.
They believe that demons can assault them or possess people and locations, and think this happens all the time...It's like choosing to be schizophrenic or something!!!:mad:

con-ways


What a word!
English isn't your first language, is it?

Do you know what a "con" is?

Have you any idea what you just said above?!



I wanted to tell if such mass of people would not have fear of God it would be terrible . I am sure you understood what I meant before , so I used a wrong word .

Are you saying that you are sane and I am insane .

I am glad for evangelism and that it con-ways the fear of God . I would realy be concerned if all those people would be fearless of God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkq7PLmGtQ&feature=related

There is a wide plurality of evangelism that rejects evolution and evolutionary science. If you're not part of that, good. It's a dangerous philosophy.

Creation occurred looooonnng before evolution did.

Creation occurred looooonnng before evolution did.

Creation doesn't require God, but evolution does require life.

Creation requires someone with the knowledge of how to create, which YHWH had, call him what you want. Evolution doesn't require evolution either, but it still happened.

Creation occurred looooonnng before evolution did.

Then prove it.

Medicine doesn't appease fear with animal sacrifices, chief.
Instead you can buy a daffodil to cure cancer give a mouse cancer

http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2010/08/18/daffodil-day-merch_fct649x777x33x112.jpg

http://www.projectnarro.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/LabMice_1686684c-e1286056805274.jpg

:shrug:

Creation requires someone with the knowledge of how to create, which YHWH had, call him what you want. Evolution doesn't require evolution either, but it still happened.

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God, and however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God. Whatever you believe about God is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay...etc. all the way back to superstitious primitive people and for some reason you want to believe in that shit.

Creation doesn't require God, but evolution does require life.
as far as I recall abiogenesis is strictly a theoretical notion

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God, and however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God. Whatever you believe about God is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay...etc. all the way back to superstitious primitive people and for some reason you want to believe in that shit.
On the contrary, whatever you believe about origins of existence arising out of reductionist models is hearsay .. but for some reason you want to believe in marrying empiricism to post dated rain cheques (ie : total shit)

Part of being a scientists is the ability to make independent judgements. This requires a firm grounding in science theory and the ability to reason and infer. If you require censoring to create the illusion of independent judgement, you are not really a scientist. You still have training wheels on the mind, and cannot yet drive by yourself without support. The Evangelical movements do not impact me in ways that make me lose my ability to have independent judgements even if I learn what they have to say. Maybe the scientists of this generation are not really as independent as they claim.

as far as I recall abiogenesis is strictly a theoretical notion

And yet it has more evidence in it's favor than God.

Creation requires someone with the knowledge of how to create, which YHWH had, call him what you want. Evolution doesn't require evolution either, but it still happened.

Where did he get that knowledge?

And yet it has more evidence in it's favor than God.
Actually even if you want to talk of reductionist models monopolizing calls for evidence, the two claims are equal because they are both theoretical (never mind the detail that its logically impossible to evidence either of them by the said method)
:shrug:

as far as I recall abiogenesis is strictly a theoretical notion

I think you are correct. What has that got to do with anything? I like the fact that we still don't know it all. I just don't see how that means I should believe in God. By the way which God do you believe in? I would guess Christian and then ask why that one? Let me guess, you were brought up that way.

Creation doesn't require God, but evolution does require life.


How did it come by ? I was not there, and you were not either, but I really would like to know how did life started scientifically in step by step, how this molecules come together

Actually even if you want to talk of reductionist models monopolizing calls for evidence, the two claims are equal because they are both theoretical (never mind the detail that its logically impossible to evidence either of them by the said method)
:shrug:

Reductionism actually works because it led to the discovery of the fundamental units of both life (cells, DNA) and matter (atoms, quarks).

I really would like to know how did life started scientifically in step by step, how this molecules come together

Me too.

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God, and however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God. Whatever you believe about God is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay...etc. all the way back to superstitious primitive people and for some reason you want to believe in that shit.


What go that far , on how heavy elements were made. We don't know If God is an very advanced being and reside in some planet in some distant galaxy .
Why overflow to invoke something to far removed

How did it come by ? I was not there, and you were not either, but I really would like to know how did life started scientifically in step by step, how this molecules come together

Still working on that, can I get back to you later when I get the answer?:D

Where did he get that knowledge?

Evolution requires a formed cell.

How long did it take us Identify DNA, 120000 years or more . Do we know how old is the universe 13,7 B years , what about before B.B.

What go that far , on how heavy elements were made. We don't know If God is an very advanced being and reside in some planet in some distant galaxy .
Why overflow to invoke something to far removed

Sorry I was assuming the standard definition of God in the broadest sense. Anyway given that humans lie a lot to influence others, why should I believe in made up bullshit? If there was an all powerful God that wanted me to know that he existed and that I should live by his rules, all he has to do is ask. Damn, I've never been asked.

I should live by his rules, all he has to do is ask. Damn, I've never been asked.

I don't understand the last part " Damn, I've never been asked."

Reductionism actually works because it led to the discovery of the fundamental units of both life (cells, DNA) and matter (atoms, quarks).
and its precisely because no one can provide a working model for life in the language of dna matter and quarks that abiogenesis remains a theoretical concept.
:shrug:

I think you are correct.
Then why talk about what is excluded in the creation of the universe


What has that got to do with anything? I like the fact that we still don't know it all.
yet you just let rip with statements tot he contrary ...

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God

however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God

etc etc


I just don't see how that means I should believe in God.
I didn't present it as a means for you to believe in god

I presented it as means to point out how you are over-stepping the credibility of the knowledge base of science


By the way which God do you believe in?
as maintainer, sustainer and ultimately destroyer


I would guess Christian and then ask why that one? Let me guess, you were brought up that way.
wrong on all counts

I don't see what my personal approach to religion has to do with the manner you incorrectly borrow from the credibility of science to inflate your arguments

When a star creates heavy elements that doesn't require a God, and however our universe was created was also natural and didn't require a God. Whatever you believe about God is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay...etc. all the way back to superstitious primitive people and for some reason you want to believe in that shit.

I liked this because it reminded me of Thomas Paine:


When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

I also like the remark about heavy elements being created in stars, since creationists seem to not be aware of this, at least it never seems to come up in the fundamentalist attacks on science.

I liked this because it reminded me of Thomas Paine:



I also like the remark about heavy elements being created in stars, since creationists seem to not be aware of this, at least it never seems to come up in the fundamentalist attacks on science.



Perhaps you are not familiar , many pf are familiar , so don't overestimate your knowledge. because you can get embarrassed

Evolution requires a formed cell.

How long did it take us Identify DNA, 120000 years or more . Do we know how old is the universe 13,7 B years , what about before B.B.

There is no before the big bang. Time and space both were created from a singularity at that instant. There was no time before big bang just like there was no U before ur birth [n pls dont go into my soul was eternal, etc, I mean u, not ur soul, if it even exists].

There is no before the big bang. Time and space both were created from a singularity at that instant. There was no time before big bang just like there was no U before ur birth [n pls dont go into my soul was eternal, etc, I mean u, not ur soul, if it even exists].
The earlier you go down the timeline of the Big bang, the less likely you will find a scientific consensus on it ... what to speak of issues before it

I don't understand the last part " Damn, I've never been asked."

It means he would accept the existence of god, all he needs is god to give him some conclusive evidence. It like if there were a god and he is confronted by him in the afterlife;
God - Why did u not believe in me?
KillJoyKlown - U didn't provide enough evidence.

The earlier you go down the timeline of the Big bang, the less likely you will find a scientific consensus on it ... what to speak of issues before it

Well its a field in constant flux. We just dont know enough and the theories have to be modified to incorporate new evidence. That why there is no evidence. Indeed I wonder if big bang cosmology will be resolved in this century at all.

Well its a field in constant flux. We just dont know enough and the theories have to be modified to incorporate new evidence. That why there is no evidence. Indeed I wonder if big bang cosmology will be resolved in this century at all.
so its not an effective point to offer leverage for arguments for/against evolution etc

so its not an effective point to offer leverage for arguments for/against evolution etc

Of course not. Abiogenesis is only slightly less worse off. Anyway, what do either have to do with evolution? Evolution only explains and describes changes in living, replicating populations. It doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life or of the universe.

So I would hold that over the next 3 decades the world should become more secular and less attentive to religion. Anyway it happens, we can safely bet that religion will be extinct in 500 years.

You think it is reasonable to "safely bet" on something that you won't live to see??

I think you are correct. What has that got to do with anything?

When someone says God talks to them, you are sure that they are crazy or liars:


Anytime someone says god talks to them I know they are crazy or they are liars. I usually go with the latter, and at that moment I lose interest in talking to them. After all what's the point of talking to a liar. As a matter of fact if you do continue talking to them, you give them hope that they can troll you.:D

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2874650&postcount=24

You don't think that considering someone to be "crazy" or a "liar" is a serious matter?



I like the fact that we still don't know it all. I just don't see how that means I should believe in God.

The fact that we still don't know everything can be taken to mean that we must apply high epistemological and ethical standards to our pursuit of knowledge and how we communicate with others in this regard.

You think it is reasonable to "safely bet" on something that you won't live to see??

Why not?

Why not?

Oh dear.
So do tell - who will collect or pay out your bet, in 500 years?

Of course not. Abiogenesis is only slightly less worse off.
they are both "worse off" since they are theoretical ideas only, plain and simple.


Anyway, what do either have to do with evolution? Evolution only explains and describes changes in living, replicating populations. It doesnt have anything to do with the origin of life or of the universe.
You're the one who brought in the topic of the origins of the big bang as effectively ruling out a god
:shrug:

You're the one who brought in the topic of the origins of the big bang as effectively ruling out a god
:shrug:

When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out. Till then, I am open to deism and panenthesim.

When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out. Till then, I am open to deism and panenthesim.

Why bother with being now "open to deism and panenthesim,"
if you are already sure that "When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out"?

That's like saying "I'll get drunk, until I am sober."

:bugeye:

When [not if] early universe theories and fully made, god indeed will be ruled out. Till then, I am open to deism and panenthesim.
what do they call in science an over-bearing determination to fix information to a conclusion?

Type 1 errors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1_error#Type_I_error)?

Its all about religion. Superstitions build up, become institutional. Thats how religions develop.

You are talking about institutes. Anyone, with enough money and know how, can create a ''religious institute''. If that is what you are talking about then fair enough, but I'm talking about religion itself, God, and our relationship with God.

What say you on that?

jan.

Making things up? You've never read any ancient history?


citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice


Every single animal that is purposefully killed is an act of sacrifice, and the worst acts of sacrifice occurrs in abundance, today, in the slaughterhouses.
Worst, because these animals are sacrificed purely for the pleasure of the individual. This is (I don't give a shit about anything but me and mine) atheism.

At least, in a religious sacrifice, there need not be damage to the environment, doing all kinds of nasty shit to make the animal grow fatter, faster, rampant obesity, disease, cruelty, not only to animals but people who may be regarded as animals or sub-human.


jan.

You are talking about institutes. Anyone, with enough money and know how, can create a ''religious institute''. If that is what you are talking about then fair enough, but I'm talking about religion itself, God, and our relationship with God.

What say you on that?

jan.

Ok. I think:
Religion is a human construct, based around an idea called god, those would clear the religion and are empowered by it use this idea to control people. It was once necessary to explain the stars and the eclipses and to control uneducated, primitive, barbaric people. Now with education and science, both of those needs are fulfilled without religion. Thats why I think that soon it will be quite unnecessary. {of course were conditions arent stil quite, em, civilised or sofisticated, we do need religion for now}.

Whats Ur opinion?

Oh dear.
So do tell - who will collect or pay out your bet, in 500 years?

Come on! It was figurative. Look at how religious the world was 500 years ago and how much less so it is today. Its bound to fade away in the future.

Ok. I think:
Religion is a human construct, based around an idea called god, those would clear the religion and are empowered by it use this idea to control people. It was once necessary to explain the stars and the eclipses and to control uneducated, primitive, barbaric people. Now with education and science, both of those needs are fulfilled without religion. Thats why I think that soon it will be quite unnecessary. {of course were conditions arent stil quite, em, civilised or sofisticated, we do need religion for now}.

Whats Ur opinion?

My opinion is this. You are not thinking for yourself. You can go on any
fundie-atheist site and read the same rhetoric you have just spewed.

Have you read any vedic literature? If you have then you'll know that for thousands of years knowledge of the stars, planets, and universe have been known. There is nothing new, save minute details.

Have you read a book called ''Forbidden Archeology''? If you have, you will
realise that there is evidence of modern anotimical humans existing previous to 100,000 years stated by Darwinists/evolutionists.

There is an abundance of tools, and human remains dating back to millions of years, all of which have been suppressed, and/or denied by the powers that control.

Kinock yourself out.

jan.

[QUOTE=Jan Ardena;2875095]My opinion is this. You are not thinking for yourself. You can go on any
fundie-atheist site and read the same rhetoric you have just spewed.
[QUOTE]

I swear, hon, I have not read even 1 such site, these thoughts are entirely my own, based on hitchen's naturalistic explaination of religion.

And indeed, Homo sapiens [no us, homo sapiens sapiens] are modern humans and they have been around for over a million years. We all know that. Homo sapiens neandethalis is even older than us.

Come on! It was figurative.

"Figurative," eh?

What else is "figurative"? Your critical thinking skills? :p



Look at how religious the world was 500 years ago and how much less so it is today. Its bound to fade away in the future.

I have no recollection of how things were 500 years ago, so I can't say.

I swear, hon, I have not read even 1 such site, these thoughts are entirely my own, based on hitchen's naturalistic explaination of religion.

And indeed, Homo sapiens [no us, homo sapiens sapiens] are modern humans and they have been around for over a million years. We all know that. Homo sapiens neandethalis is even older than us.

Check this out: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=486070

Check this out: http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=486070

He thanks. I have been looking for a book like this. Got it by torrent.

aaqucnaona,



[QUOTE=Jan Ardena;2875095]My opinion is this. You are not thinking for yourself. You can go on any
fundie-atheist site and read the same rhetoric you have just spewed.
[QUOTE]



I swear, hon, I have not read even 1 such site, these thoughts are entirely my own, based on hitchen's naturalistic explaination of religion.


Wa' thank-ya sweet-buns, ferr showin me tha exteyant to which this indoctrination has spread.

Hitchins? :D:D:D



And indeed, Homo sapiens [no us, homo sapiens sapiens] are modern humans and they have been around for over a million years. We all know that. Homo sapiens neandethalis is even older than us.


I'm talking about humans like us.
Read the book before you go making up your mind.

Math, at times, is not too much different from religion, in that it uses alternate reality to help explain reality.

For example, if I had three apples and took away four apples I would have minus one apple. What is a negative apple? I think it grows in the land of unicorns in alternate reality. This negative apple is a possible math result, such as from 3-4=-1, but the result in terms of reality, is not something of this world. Yet, this shadow world, where negative apples live, has practical value, allowing humans to create things in this world that are not yet part of nature. Nature does not have this shadow world and therefore cannot make synthetic things.

Religion works the same way, where that which is not evident or part of this world (negative apple), can be used as an alternator reality placeholder to help create new things that are not part of nature, such as evolving human nature.

The observational purist, to be consistent, should be up at arms against negative apples and irrational numbers, etc. But there is a dual standard because the entire political game is irrational, being part of that mirror world.

If you consider atheism, the question I have asked myself is why does religion push their buttons so much? Why do they get so irrational over something they say has no value.The reaction far outweighs the value they define. It would be like saying that little dog is a wimp, and then jump up and down in terror shaking a large stick. There is a loss of rational proportion.

This has to do with the math world and it own version of negative reality. If you take away an apple so there is a negative apple, there is a void inside the natural mind (where there are no negative apple), creating substance in alternate reality. The unconscious reaction is based on that void in reality or the substance this is created in their alternate reality. Live and let live does not create negative apples in the mind and is more calming since it return the unconscious to natural where there are only positive apples.

I'm talking about humans like us.
Read the book before you go making up your mind.

They are humans like us. And what book?

wellwisher,


Religion works the same way, where that which is not evident or part of this world (negative apple), can be used as an alternator reality placeholder to help create new things that are not part of nature, such as evolving human nature.



Real religion is evident, IMO, but like any ''real'' experience, it is not theoretical. IOW, you can't sample it, you have to experience it. It is an individual pursuit.




If you consider atheism, the question I have asked myself is why does religion push their buttons so much? Why do they get so irrational over something they say has no value.


Because it becomes part of our nature if we let it.
Atheism isn't a club of choice, it is a condition. We cannot choose to be
atheist, anymore than we can choose to be theist. Not in reality anyway.

If I am writing about God, and glorifying God, then I am being theistic. If for
a brief moment I am distracted by an attractive female, and my thoughts turn to carnal desires, I am being atheistic.

The atheists buttons aren't pushed by religion, they are pushed by God, and people who believe in God. They don't mind religions that glorify man, the earth, the universe, the selfish self, or anything that goes against the notion of an almighty God, even if a religion claims to be serving God but clearly are hypocritical.

However, I do understand that you are talking about an ''atheist club'', where like minds will bond in a bid to strengthen the atheist feeling in a bid to crush what is left of real theism in the world today. Such is the time.


jan.

Such is the time.

There has never been a better time for any species ever on this planet.

[QUOTE=

And indeed, Homo sapiens [no us, homo sapiens sapiens] are modern humans and they have been around for over a million years. We all know that. Homo sapiens neandethalis is even older than us.

Are you sure about millions ? would you settle for hundred thousands ?

...

You are a dude or a lesbian?

You are a dude or a lesbian?

What made you think of that??

I always thought Jan was female. But Jan wrote:"If for
a brief moment I am distracted by an attractive female"...

You are a dude or a lesbian?

I was think that.... hmm... should i ask her, if it would be rude...

[QUOTE=aaqucnaona;2875099]

Are you sure about millions ? would you settle for hundred thousands ?

We modern humans are her for a few hundred thousands. What we would call ape men were around for some millions.

[QUOTE=arauca;2875310]

We modern humans are her for a few hundred thousands. What we would call ape men were around for some millions.



When you invoke modern man so stick to it, you mentioned Neanderthal I did not want to correct you , but don't go all over the map to draw your point.

Every single animal that is purposefully killed is an act of sacrifice, and the worst acts of sacrifice occurrs in abundance, today, in the slaughterhouses.
Worst, because these animals are sacrificed purely for the pleasure of the individual. This is (I don't give a shit about anything but me and mine) atheism.

At least, in a religious sacrifice, there need not be damage to the environment, doing all kinds of nasty shit to make the animal grow fatter, faster, rampant obesity, disease, cruelty, not only to animals but people who may be regarded as animals or sub-human.


jan.

I fully agree with and sympathize on animal cruelty. It seems that the perception of dominion over animals starts with the premise that they are here for our food. If I'm going to eat you anyway, why not wring your neck by slamming you on the pavement. If I'm going to wring your neck anyway, why not coop you up in this little hell hole (etc.) Over the years I have developed a distaste for any food that brings this to mind. So I appreciate your remarks.

I am also interested in your view that slaughtering animals for pleasure (Here I'm thinking of the way someone orders a Porterhouse medium rare) - that this is an expression of atheism. I have never heard that connection before, and would be interested to hear more about it.

It seems that modern rituals generally shy away from animal sacrifices as they were once practiced. That at least shows a benefit of progress on religion.

When you invoke modern man so stick to it, you mentioned Neanderthal I did not want to correct you , but don't go all over the map to draw your point.

And let us not forget that the non-pure-Africans among us also carry traces of our Neanderthal parentage.

Conclusion: this discussion is not as high-brow it seems. (Notwithstanding Spidergoat's slapstick.) :xctd:

Oh- and not only did they use tools, bury their dead and perhaps use fertility fetishes or some form of religious ideation, but they also practically invented art. Not that this changes the timeline - just, please, let's not desecrate the memory of the ancestors! :worship:

t.

It seems that modern rituals generally shy away from animal sacrifices as they were once practiced. That at least shows a benefit of progress on religion.[/QUOTE]


Now they burn the fat made in candles and is cheaper and you can burn more then one

Aqueous Id,



I am also interested in your view that slaughtering animals for pleasure (Here I'm thinking of the way someone orders a Porterhouse medium rare) - that this is an expression of atheism. I have never heard that connection before, and would be interested to hear more about it.


I'm not refering to the group of people who identify themselves as atheist. I refering to the actual meaning of ''atheist'', someone who does not believe in God, and what that actually means. One is atheistic when one engages the senses purely for ones own gratification, likewise one is ''theistic'' or (God/god) religious when one engages the senses according to the religious principle set out in the scripture.


There is a difference between the actuality of atheist, the the club of atheists.



It seems that modern rituals generally shy away from animal sacrifices as they were once practiced. That at least shows a benefit of progress on religion.


Rituals that sacrifice animals according to the scripture are meant to benefit the inhabited soul of the body of the animal, not to mention restrict the culling of animals, preserving the environment, creating healthy humans because they eat more fruit and veg. There is so much benefit to mankind if they only kill animals according to scriptoral regulations, it's just not funny.


But as that probably doesn't mean anything to you (being atheist an' all, there's no point in going there. :)


jan.

Rituals that sacrifice animals according to the scripture are meant to benefit the inhabited soul of the body of the animal, not to mention restrict the culling of animals, preserving the environment, creating healthy humans because they eat more fruit and veg.

This is interesting to me because you are speaking on a different level than a prima facie reading of scripture (the Bible?) would reveal. There is a level of interpretation involved. [Or maybe you are referring to some ancillary writings or pseudepigrapha.] In any case, it's somewhat unusual to hear a native English speaker - with an American inflection (I'm thinkin sho nuff you is) - refer to the soul of an animal in a religious context.

I'm not sure (in all mah born days) I've ever come across an idea like that, outside of the Eastern philosophies and religions.

it's somewhat unusual to hear a native English speaker - with an American inflection (I'm thinkin sho nuff you is) - refer to the soul of an animal in a religious context.She sho nuff ain't no Christian. They don't believe that any animal has a soul except Homo sapiens. This is why there's no Dog Heaven. We get to be "reunited" with all the people who were mean to us, the mother who never stopped screaming and the father who did nothing to make her stop, and all of the dead spouses whom we mourned before remarrying. But not the most faithful friends we ever had!

I agree with Will Rogers: "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." If that means "absolutely nowhere," because neither dogs nor humans have souls, I'm cool with it.

I once encountered a Christian advice website on which a mother asked what to tell her children when they asked if their beloved dog, who just died, would be waiting for them in Heaven. The priest replied that since God can do anything he wants, he can easily create an exact duplicate of Rover, with all his quirks and memories, which will be indistinguishable from the real Rover--since neither has a soul. Since this is much too complicated to explain to five year-olds, he told her it would be okay to lie to them and simplify the story by just saying yes, Rover will be waiting happily for you in Heaven.

Let's see, that would be about six hundred dog years. Poor Rover!

... This is why there's no Dog Heaven. We get to be "reunited" with all the people who were mean to us, the mother who never stopped screaming and the father who did nothing to make her stop, and all of the dead spouses whom we mourned before remarrying. But not the most faithful friends we ever had!

I agree with Will Rogers: "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." If that means "absolutely nowhere," because neither dogs nor humans have souls, I'm cool with it.

I once encountered a Christian advice website on which a mother asked what to tell her children when they asked if their beloved dog, who just died, would be waiting for them in Heaven. The priest replied that since God can do anything he wants, he can easily create an exact duplicate of Rover, with all his quirks and memories, which will be indistinguishable from the real Rover--since neither has a soul. Since this is much too complicated to explain to five year-olds, he told her it would be okay to lie to them and simplify the story by just saying yes, Rover will be waiting happily for you in Heaven.

Let's see, that would be about six hundred dog years. Poor Rover!

I just got through nominating someone else for best-ever comebacks, but, on second thought, I think you have the lead by a mile. Keep on rockin - DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL WILL BURN IN HELL!!! :mufc: :eek:

She sho nuff ain't no Christian. They don't believe that any animal has a soul except Homo sapiens.

Bollocks. They believe everything from A to Z these days. The tent goes very wide in the reach to embrace.

Bollocks. They believe everything from A to Z these days. The tent goes very wide in the reach to embrace.

Particularly if they're sacrificing bullocks from a to Ω at a tent revival! :D

Wouldn't surprise me for a second.

Bollocks. They believe everything from A to Z these days. The tent goes very wide in the reach to embrace.I'm sure that's true since the church authorities don't have as much influence as they did a thousand years ago. Nonetheless, it is a key point of Christian doctrine that only humans have souls. If other animals had souls, would they not also be worthy of saving? What part of God's commandments and other entreaties directs his human children to help save the souls of his non-human children?

I agree, doctrinally. But the mind of the average kneeler is a bit more muddied, these days.

Aqueous Id,


This is interesting to me because you are speaking on a different level than a prima facie reading of scripture (the Bible?) would reveal.


What's even more interesting is why you think the Bible is the only scripture.



There is a level of interpretation involved. [Or maybe you are referring to some ancillary writings or pseudepigrapha.] In any case, it's somewhat unusual to hear a native English speaker - with an American inflection (I'm thinkin sho nuff you is) - refer to the soul of an animal in a religious context.


Actually, I was just messing around. I am an English person.

You should actually LISTEN to what is being said, rather than resorting to stereo types. It makes for an actual conversation.


I'm not sure (in all mah born days) I've ever come across an idea like that, outside of the Eastern philosophies and religions.


It's quite clear that there are a few things you haven't come across.


jan.

This is interesting to me because you are speaking on a different level than a prima facie reading of scripture (the Bible?) would reveal.What's even more interesting is why you think the Bible is the only scripture.I think the question mark inside the parentheses was meant to make it clear that the Bible was merely a guess, since Christianity is the overwhelming majority religion in anglophone countries, but that he also understood that you might have been referring to another religion's scripture.

What's even more interesting is why you think the Bible is the only scripture.

I do not. Without knowing your perspective, I was left to reference the US English common usage. Inferring now that you are not asserting an US Southern Baptist theology, I will correct myself of that misunderstanding.



Actually, I was just messing around. I am an English person.

In that case I retract all inferences of US fundamentalism unless you object. :o



You should actually LISTEN to what is being said, rather than resorting to stereo types. It makes for an actual conversation.

If I am in error I am happy to amend. I enjoy this forum because of the rich diversity and interesting personas of its members. My tendency to stereotype to US fundamentalism is deeply ingrained. I haven't found any recourse yet than to call a spade a spade. I am all ears, and taking notice of your objections, with curiosity and interest.



It's quite clear that there are a few things you haven't come across.
jan.
Well, not you, but that's my loss. :) Thank you for this interaction, it deletes one item from that list. As far as the question at hand, (arising from your Southern US impersonation), if there are any practitioners of animal sacrifice, I certainly admit that I have not encountered any in the US, as they do this at night in secret rituals that do not interest me. I would further add that I have encountered animal sacrifice outside of the US, practiced openly.

When you explained that animal sacrifice was to liberate the soul of the animal, were you referring to any particular religions, sects, or cults, if so, which?

If you say "scripture", am I correct to assume you mean the combined sacred writings of the principal world religions, or to include the ancillary and non-canonical writings, or also those of the smaller denominations, sects and cults, or the occult, or also the inspired writings of great authors in general?

I think the question mark inside the parentheses was meant to make it clear that the Bible was merely a guess, since Christianity is the overwhelming majority religion in anglophone countries, but that he also understood that you might have been referring to another religion's scripture.

Yes, thank you, that was a good and correct observation.

I cant help but notice how Jan turned the conversation around and had AI apologising, meanwhile completely Not answering the original question.

I cant help but notice how Jan turned the conversation around and had AI apologising, meanwhile completely Not answering the original question.

I am interested in what Jan has to say. I still do not fully comprehend. And I made some incorrect inferences from what I understood from Jan's posts. I think that's been straightened out now. Hopefully there will be more repartee.

I still do not fully comprehend.

Well, look at what she did in post 114. U asked her opinion of immortality in non human speices and she pointed just the simple guess u made as being streotyping and wrote quite disparagingly about ur inability to listen and ur stereotyping and that u hadnt come across quite a lot, etc. She made a issue out of total trivials coz what u said was in conflict with the scripture. She bashed u, avoided the question and gave the impression that it was ur fault. That's what I meant.
Man, she would do well as a lawyer.

Man, she would do well as a lawyer.

Hah! Good call.

I was surprised by the response from Jan. I look forward to a reply.

Aqueous Id,



I do not. Without knowing your perspective, I was left to reference the US English common usage. Inferring now that you are not asserting an US Southern Baptist theology, I will correct myself of that misunderstanding.


But you did know my perspective, because I gave it.
I'm not accusing you of anything, just merely pointing out your state of
mind regarding religion, and how you asociated to what I said.

This, to me, is the problem when conversing with club atheists. They don't
hear what is being said.

At least you have acknowledge that.
Duly noted, and apreciated.



In that case I retract all inferences of US fundamentalism unless you object. :o

I'm currently watching
True... [''i lurve yoo Sooky Stackhouse'']...Blood, where everybody has this southern american accent (which happens to be my favorite one). :)



If I am in error I am happy to amend. I enjoy this forum because of the rich diversity and interesting personas of its members.

You and me both.



My tendency to stereotype to US fundamentalism is deeply ingrained. I haven't found any recourse yet than to call a spade a spade. I am all ears, and taking notice of your objections, with curiosity and interest.


Okay.



Well, not you, but that's my loss. :) Thank you for this interaction, it deletes one item from that list. As far as the question at hand, (arising from your Southern US impersonation), if there are any practitioners of animal sacrifice, I certainly admit that I have not encountered any in the US, as they do this at night in secret rituals that do not interest me. I would further add that I have encountered animal sacrifice outside of the US, practiced openly.


If I'm hungry, and I kill a bird to quell my hunger, that bird has been sacrificed for something. Similarly, the animals that are killed in the slaughter houses, are killed for something, therefore they are being sacrificed.
That there is no religious ritual, reflects the person or organisation, and their
spiritual position. So animal sacrifice is rife throughout the world.



When you explained that animal sacrifice was to liberate the soul of the animal, were you referring to any particular religions, sects, or cults, if so, which?



Think about it. If the animal didn't have a soul, much like a rock, or bottle, there would be no need of ritual.

Not taking the life of others for selfish purposes, is sign of good intelligence, because it shows compassion, and empathy. The problem is, we generally don't have much choice. Even plants and trees are alive, so as a vegetarian, I am still responsible for taking life which goes against the instruction ''thou shalt not kill''. So God allows us to kill for the purpose of food and shelter, hence ''sacrifice'' or ''offering''. If we follow the rules and regs, the souls of the sacrificed become human in there next birth. This is a boon for the soul of the animal, and there is no karmic reaction for the people who partake in the sacrifice, or fruits of the sacrifice.
Vegetables and fruits are designated foodstuffs for most humans, and as such do not suffer any karmic reaction.



If you say "scripture", am I correct to assume you mean the combined sacred writings of the principal world religions, or to include the ancillary and non-canonical writings, or also those of the smaller denominations, sects and cults, or the occult, or also the inspired writings of great authors in general?


By ''scripture'', I mean writings that are a from God, or spoken/written from a devotee of God.


jan.

Well, look at what she did in post 114. U asked her opinion of immortality in non human speices and she pointed just the simple guess u made as being streotyping and wrote quite disparagingly about ur inability to listen and ur stereotyping and that u hadnt come across quite a lot, etc. She made a issue out of total trivials coz what u said was in conflict with the scripture. She bashed u, avoided the question and gave the impression that it was ur fault. That's what I meant.
Man, she would do well as a lawyer.


AI seems to understand that he/she was stereo-typing, as a default to what I said. Unless we set up some kind of mutal ground, our converstation will go nowhere.

jan.

AI seems to understand that he/she was stereo-typing, as a default to what I said. Unless we set up some kind of mutal ground, our converstation will go nowhere.

jan.

K. U did seem over the top, but maybe I overreacted. No harm done.
Btw, I like ur cool respone, its amazing u get more worked up over ideological differences with me that with an ad hom., I think this is where u really see the difference between ytube and sciforums.
My respect for this forum has increased twofold.

as a vegetarian

If u are a vegetarian [ur statement did make it clear whether it was hypotheticial or real], I have a question, just to know ur ideas on this.

If chickens were gentically modefied to lay unfertilsed eggs [have no embryoes, will never hatch] would u equate it to milk and eat them?

Similiarly, if stem cells could be cultured to produce meat [just muscle cells, nothing else, hence no animal killed], would u eat it?

Ps, I am a vegeterian and I would say yes to both.

aaqucnaona,



If u are a vegetarian [ur statement did make it clear whether it was hypotheticial or real], I have a question, just to know ur ideas on this.


ok.




If chickens were gentically modefied to lay unfertilsed eggs [have no embryoes, will never hatch] would u equate it to milk and eat them?



I wouln't want to eat the chicken period.
However if I was in a situation where eating meat was for my survival, and
there was absolutely nothing else, I would have to eat it.




Similiarly, if stem cells could be cultured to produce meat [just muscle cells, nothing else, hence no animal killed], would u eat it?



Ordinarily, no, but if the situation called for it, then yes.
I have no desire to eat meat, and find the smell of frying cows, pigs, sheep, etc.. very distasteful.


jan.

.

I dislike the smell myself. But those eggs would not be chickens, they would never hatch, they have no embroyes in them to hatch. Why not, then?
Similiarly, meat cultures grown from a lump of stem cells isnt an animal, ur arent killing a conscious living being. Whats the problem with that either?

And yes, in a life or death situation, we would all be like bear gyrlls.

I dislike the smell myself. But those eggs would not be chickens, they would never hatch, they have no embroyes in them to hatch. Why not, then?
Similiarly, meat cultures grown from a lump of stem cells isnt an animal, ur arent killing a conscious living being. Whats the problem with that either?

It stinks.

AI seems to understand that he/she was stereo-typing, as a default to what I said. Unless we set up some kind of mutal ground, our converstation will go nowhere.
jan.

He was wondering about your meaning of words. He notices that you refer to Jesus and the Vedas, ritual sacrifice and casual dining, and the seemingly esoteric idea of liberating animals of their souls. So He would like to know more about these ideas because He sees that You/He/She are/is inviting etymology possibly or perhaps poetic allusion or maybe something possibly of unconventional roots perhaps maybe like Hermetics or something out of the pseudepigrapha or the more modern ideas of Jesus in India.

But don't hold Him to any specifics in those areas as He considers stereotyping to be debasing and disordered to His thinking, not to mention that He would be doing You/He/She a huge disservice as there appears to be substantially more going on with You/He/She than meets the eye.

And He thanks you in advance for reading His post.

It stinks.

I agree.

He was wondering about your meaning of words. He notices that you refer to Jesus and the Vedas, ritual sacrifice and casual dining, and the seemingly esoteric idea of liberating animals of their souls. So He would like to know more about these ideas because He sees that You/He/She are/is inviting etymology possibly or perhaps poetic allusion or maybe something possibly of unconventional roots perhaps maybe like Hermetics or something out of the pseudepigrapha or the more modern ideas of Jesus in India.

But don't hold Him to any specifics in those areas as He considers stereotyping to be debasing and disordered to His thinking, not to mention that He would be doing You/He/She a huge disservice as there appears to be substantially more going on with You/He/She than meets the eye.

And He thanks you in advance for reading His post.


When you see Him, maybe you could ask Him to respond to the post I made in
response to His request. :)


jan.

I dislike the smell myself. But those eggs would not be chickens, they would never hatch, they have no embroyes in them to hatch. Why not, then?
Similiarly, meat cultures grown from a lump of stem cells isnt an animal, ur arent killing a conscious living being. Whats the problem with that either?

And yes, in a life or death situation, we would all be like bear gyrlls.


If I'm going to eat meat, then I would eat meat from the natural animal. ha
As it stands, I do not have a taste for meat, period.

jan.

\I would eat meat from the natural animal

So u are ready to kill and eat and animal, but refuse to eat it when its grow in a cell culture, withour constituting an animal? Whats the basis of that reasoning?
If u can eat and animal to save ur own life, why not eat it in the absence of that threat both to u and that animal [which, in my example, would exist; its just a culture of cells].


As it stands, I do not have a taste for meat, period.


If this were not true, and u accepted my statement above, would u eat said [non fertile eggs, cell culture of muscle] artifically made animal products?

Btw, sorry if u think this to be uncomfortablly probing. U dont have to answer.

aaqucnaona,



So u are ready to kill and eat and animal, but refuse to eat it when its grow in a cell culture, withour constituting an animal? Whats the basis of that reasoning?


From my perspect, there's no difference. If the animal is alive, then it has a soul, no different in quality to me.

An animal ''grown'', as you put it, wouldn't, IMO, taste as nice as a wild one.
I may of course be wrong, but if fruit and veg are anything to go by, then I doubt it.

But of course if I was a carnivore, and there was no other type of meat available, I would undoubtedly eat it.


If u can eat and animal to save ur own life, why not eat it in the absence of that threat both to u and that animal [which, in my example, would exist; its just a culture of cells].

I agree with you on principle, but I doubt that lab-grown meat would be used for altruistic purpose.



If this were not true, and u accepted my statement above, would u eat said [non fertile eggs, cell culture of muscle] artifically made animal products?

Btw, sorry if u think this to be uncomfortablly probing. U dont have to answer.


Given the choice, no, but without choice yes.


jan.

.

K. A final question, is ur view on non vegetarianism based on or influenced by your theism. If so how?

K. A final question, is ur view on non vegetarianism based on or influenced by your theism. If so how?

Initially, yes.

The idea of taking another life, for my personal pleasure didn't and doesn't
appeal to me.

jan.

The idea of taking another life, for my personal pleasure didn't and doesn't
appeal to me.

U hit it right on target there. My initial reason for vegetarianism was the dogmatic restriction in my [now a vestige of] religion agaisnt non vegetarianism. When I choose atheism as my perspective [as a scientific, rational, temporary and falsifiable stand or consensus on God], I was faced by the question, if no god, what do do this or that?

Which is when I looked into history of religion, hence this very OP, and the scientific basis of human morality in sociobiology, something that is a product not of a supernatural or divine origin but of psychology/neurology [genetic determinism] and social sciences.

Thereby I made firm, my already prexisting respect for life and decided that I wouldnt kill an animal or any other life form just for my pleasure; but I would do so in a life or death situation or if I am harmed or at a risk of harm from that lifeform. And I think that is a better way to think about it that to use my theology as the basis to be a vegetarian.

What do u think about this? Do u agree that human morality is the result of nature and nurture; not some divine gift?

.

What do u think about this? Do u agree that human morality is the result of nature and nurture; not some divine gift?[/QUOTE]


How old is morality, and do you talk about human or about the whole animal kingdom?

Initially, yes.

The idea of taking another life, for my personal pleasure didn't and doesn't
appeal to me.

jan.

It appeals to God, evidently. The Bible is full of animal sacrifices. He loves burning flesh.

How old is morality, and do you talk about human or about the whole animal kingdom?

I think human morality is a result of our altruistic genes combined with our upbringing.
I think animal morality in general is more genetic than in humans, but the traits of altruism are quite universal among ants and termites, bees, lions and elephants and apes including humans.
So morality in this sense is as old as the earliest insect societies. For us humans, it is atleast at old as Lucy, who was a intelligent social bipedal primate, much like us.

t.

It seems that modern rituals generally shy away from animal sacrifices as they were once practiced. That at least shows a benefit of progress on religion.

Now they burn the fat made in candles and is cheaper and you can burn more then one
It shows the progress of secularism.

Now they burn the fat made in candles and is cheaper and you can burn more then one

Good point. I had forgotten that.

Jan,

"He was wondering about your meaning of words. He notices that you refer to Jesus and the Vedas, ritual sacrifice and casual dining, and the seemingly esoteric idea of liberating animals of their souls."

When you see Him, maybe you could ask Him to respond to the post I made in response to His request.

Right then, jolly good, here we go: aha...(hmmm...what could she mean?) OK

Aqueous Id, But you did know my perspective, because I gave it.

Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

I'm not accusing you of anything, just merely pointing out your state of mind regarding religion, and how you asociated to what I said.

OK no accusation taken, noting that my state of mind has been unwrapped and set on the butcher block beside the curried tofu & chutney burgers.
Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

I'm currently watching True...[''i lurve yoo Sooky Stackhouse'']...Blood, where everybody has this southern american accent (which happens to be my favorite one)

Well then by down south I didn't think ya meant all he way down and up again and around and back down to bloody London! Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

AI seems to understand that he/she was stereo-typing

MABEL! TURN THE STEREO DOWN WHILE I TYPE, PLEASE! I'M TRYING TO FIND A LITTLE ISLAND JUST OFF THE CHUNNEL! THANKS!!! AND BRING ME ANOTHER BEER - THIS ONE'S WARM!!!
Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

This, to me, is the problem when conversing with club atheists. They don't hear what is being said.

(Right then, volume at max..) Is it a club then? I wasn't notified. Billy down the street at least got a card. Will they let me in with no shirt and shoes, or is it all black tie and tails then? That's so....not even radical chic...just... elitist... not sure if I'd run with that gaggle.
Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas...aha...maybe this:

If I'm hungry, and I kill a bird to quell my hunger, that bird has been sacrificed for something.

Seems like the dictionary is on the bloody altar here - wait, let me switch to the Oxford version....hmmm...searching...sacrifice: "You need a current subscription to access The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" ...There's a freakin parkin meter in front of your flat, Jan!...hmmm....well it's a Latin root, so: sacre + ficere = to make sacred: no, nothing about hunger - did you mean satiate Jan instead of sacrifice then? It's really done to propitiate the deity not the devout belly of the prostrate servant! Or is that stereotyping? I could try to type in mono (are you left or right handed in denomination)...here then:
P R O P I T I A T E.
There ya go all set then with sacrifice? Jolly good let's move on then.

Similarly, the animals that are killed in the slaughter houses, are killed for something, therefore they are being sacrificed.

Good God are the butchers in England into the altar wine at work Jan? That's not going to cut the mustard. Where's the propitiation of the deity in a slaughterhouse? I mean, if it's a Kosher operation, but not the slaughterhouse! Good God Jan that would be sacrilege!

That there is no religious ritual, reflects the person or organisation, and their spiritual position. So animal sacrifice is rife throughout the world.

How do ya get from slaughterhouse to ritual then? I mean the Blessing of the Ludefisk maybe but that's all way over in the Lutheran world and hardly a slaughterhouse! OK so it's rife without ritual, granted, those who eat meat are always trying to get their teeth into something, but this is an exception to the meaning of the term Jan you might as well be speaking Greek then!

Think about it. If the animal didn't have a soul, much like a rock, or bottle, there would be no need of ritual.

Well how does bringing a cleaver down on its neck or draggin its bloody entrials across a buzz saw connect with this ritual of propitiation then? That's what's got jumped me off the tram track back at Oxford Station!

Not taking the life of others for selfish purposes, is sign of good intelligence, because it shows compassion, and empathy. The problem is, we generally don't have much choice. Even plants and trees are alive, so as a vegetarian, I am still responsible for taking life which goes against the instruction ''thou shalt not kill''.

Response: That's a distinctly King James turn of phrase Jan I can't see my way back to the Vedas from here. Could you take the wheel here for a minute, because I need to go get my star charts and plot a course from Canterbury to Ceylon. (Aside: *And to think we started in Alabama.*)

So God allows us to kill for the purpose of food and shelter, hence ''sacrifice'' or ''offering''. If we follow the rules and regs, the souls of the sacrificed become human in there next birth.

Turn the boat around! Are you in a bloody teleporter Jan? The King James club (or was it Douay?) never gave a flip about the Vedas, they were just looking for chutney, threw a couple of shillings at the turbaned deck boys and made off with the goods so your foremothers and fathers could have their chow chow braised lamp chops for Sunday dinner. With the appropriate blessings Jan and maybe a recitation or two from the vicar but never with a thought about the soul of the dearly departed Little Willy Wooley.

Besides Jan what God are we talkin about here -it's a long way to Bombay even at zero hours GMT. I'm not sure the locals there in paying their respects to Lord Krishna would necessarily have a clue about Moses on the Mount with his Rule V, sub part (a).

This is a boon for the soul of the animal, and there is no karmic reaction for the people who partake in the sacrifice, or fruits of the sacrifice. Vegetables and fruits are designated foodstuffs for most humans, and as such do not suffer any karmic reaction.

I'm going to need to book a flight to Nepal Jan this is really some wild goose chase. Couldn't we just settle on a new church I mean they're going up in Alabama every day. Could we just call it Janism. Janism! --or Jainism? Cancel that flight, we're staying in Ceylon! But how Jan does 'thou shalt not kill' evoke in your reader a reference to Sanskrit of any flavor? It's such a quaint Anglican turn of phrase. You see where the compass needle is spinning now?

By ''scripture'', I mean writings that are a from God, or spoken/written from a devotee of God.

It's not a compass Jan it's a freaking flywheel. Call British Airways and have them change it to LAX... oh, and get me a hotel by the Ralph Waldo Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church on Wilshire.

Every single animal that is purposefully killed is an act of sacrifice, and the worst acts of sacrifice occurrs in abundance, today, in the slaughterhouses. Worst, because these animals are sacrificed purely for the pleasure of the individual. This is (I don't give a shit about anything but me and mine) atheism.

Well you're entitled to your opinion of the Pope who of course abstains from meat on Fridays but you're lumping a lot of leavening into the loaf here Jan it's an aspersion against a lot of nice and pious people I mean Mother Theresa types working the orphanages so poor Oliver won't be mugging you when you step out of the veggie bistro down on the Strand. It's a far cry from even the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism I mean it's casting the net over seven full oceans (not to raise the dead or anything I mean about stereotyping) but this is mangling language and merging doctrine and slandering the innocent all in one fell swoop not to mention a globalized notion of a stereotype to boot. It's a tall order, tall order.

At least, in a religious sacrifice, there need not be damage to the environment, doing all kinds of nasty shit to make the animal grow fatter, faster, rampant obesity, disease, cruelty, not only to animals but people who may be regarded as animals or sub-human.

Are we back to stabbing Little Willy Wooley in the heart for the Sunday rack of mutton, or is it a clean slice across the jugular down at Moshe's Kosher Meats?

I'm not refering to the group of people who identify themselves as atheist. I refering to the actual meaning of ''atheist'', someone who does not believe in God, and what that actually means.

Means to who Jan? To you, or to the atheist? The actual meaning is "without god", nothing more (to an atheist). I can't get your actual meaning actually because I asked for an actual compass and you handed me an actual gyro.

One is atheistic when one engages the senses purely for ones own gratification, likewise one is ''theistic'' or (God/god) religious when one engages the senses according to the religious principle set out in the scripture.

That may be the perfected state of a believer, but you're talking about saints here Jan and most have them have already passed through the Pearly Gates or so it is said. As for the perfected state of an atheist well isn't that a fine slice of mincemeat: what does gratification have to do with atheism? You mean there's no holy order of slaughtered bobbies who ran civil drills during the London bombings, only to get smashed in the rubble with a copy of Sartre in their back pockets? I'm talking card carrying club affiliated public servants here. What of the atheist secular humanist then Jan? it's a tall order - a tall tall order. Besides Jan what about the atheist Jains and surely there's quite a few Unitarians in both camps. Tall order again I say tall order.

There is a difference between the actuality of atheist, the the club of atheists. Rituals that sacrifice animals according to the scripture are meant to benefit the inhabited soul of the body of the animal, not to mention restrict the culling of animals, preserving the environment, creating healthy humans because they eat more fruit and veg. There is so much benefit to mankind if they only kill animals according to scriptoral regulations, it's just not funny.

My lips are too parched to crack even a smile out here castaway in this sea of philosopical and lexicologial uncertainty. And I'm in no mood for rubbing elbows down at the club if I could even find it which of course is another lost coordinate. It's no use trying to figure out in which locale or document you refer to the soul of an animal other than your past reference to the Vedas or maybe you mean a later Sanskrit but clearly nowhere near Canterbury, nor which scriptural regulations you mean other than those maybe compiled in Tel Aviv.

But as that probably doesn't mean anything to you (being atheist an' all, there's no point in going there.

After all of that, I'm left adrift in a dinghy in the doldrums of SciForums without a paddle. and you're telling me I'm not going anywhere? If this is my atheism, I assure you, I got here only by your navigation.

Hence I said:


Without knowing your perspective, I was left to reference the US English common usage.

If you say "scripture", am I correct to assume you mean the combined sacred writings of the principal world religions, or to include the ancillary and non-canonical writings, or also those of the smaller denominations, sects and cults, or the occult, or also the inspired writings of great authors in general?

And elsewhere you said:


Aqueous Id, What's even more interesting is why you think the Bible is the only scripture. Actually, I was just messing around. I am an English person. You should actually LISTEN to what is being said, rather than resorting to stereo types. It makes for an actual conversation. It's quite clear that there are a few things you haven't come across.


Isn't that a jumbly blob of crumbly plum pudding. Aqueous Id, But you did know my perspective, because I gave it.

Hah! Tennis anyone? :bugeye:

aaqucnaona,



U hit it right on target there. My initial reason for vegetarianism was the dogmatic restriction in my [now a vestige of] religion agaisnt non vegetarianism.

I'm not sure of your point here.
Are you saying your religion was in favour of vegetarianism?


When I choose atheism as my perspective [as a scientific, rational, temporary and falsifiable stand or consensus on God], I was faced by the question, if no god, what do do this or that?


Could you rephrase?



Which is when I looked into history of religion, hence this very OP, and the scientific basis of human morality in sociobiology, something that is a product not of a supernatural or divine origin but of psychology/neurology [genetic determinism] and social sciences.


What aspect of the ''history of religion'' lead you to this conclusion?

For you, is anything of supernatural or divine origin?



Thereby I made firm, my already prexisting respect for life and decided that I wouldnt kill an animal or any other life form just for my pleasure; but I would do so in a life or death situation or if I am harmed or at a risk of harm from that lifeform. And I think that is a better way to think about it that to use my theology as the basis to be a vegetarian.

I think that when we show genuine compassion and empathy, for, and toward others, we exhibit religiousness, even if we don't regard ourselves as theists.



What do u think about this? Do u agree that human morality is the result of nature and nurture; not some divine gift?


I don't really know what you mean by ''divine gift''.
I think morals go hand in hand with good intelligence, so I guess I do agree with your perspective, as you've written it.

jan.

I'm not sure of your point here.
Are you saying your religion was in favour of vegetarianism?

Yes.


Could you rephrase?

When I became an atheist, I was faced by the question, If there is no God, why do good things and not do bad ones? I answered it: Because its in accordance with our inherent morality and it has awesome utilitarian advantages.


What aspect of the ''history of religion'' lead you to this conclusion?

Evolutionary explainations for the present of religion in human society lead me to this conclusion. Dawkins chaper on this topic, plus the book "Breaking the spell" are the basis for this inference.


For you, is anything of supernatural or divine origin?

I dont think so. I cant be sure, but I think that supernatural or divine things are extremely unprobable. However, if there is a conclusive rational evidence for their presence, something that cannot be explained by chance or natural explaination, I am willing to believe.


I think that when we show genuine compassion and empathy, for, and toward others, we exhibit religiousness, even if we don't regard ourselves as theists.

So, all that's good is religious and theistic and all thats bad is irreligious and atheistic. How bloody convinent, considering you are a theist. Tell me, do you always twist every definition to suit your needs? Like u did with religion and theism here and with slaughter being equated to sacrifice in your post to Aqueous Id? Btw, he has a post for you [#143].


I don't really know what you mean by ''divine gift''

I mean something that is given by god alone, often to a chosen few, like followers or a species. Divine gift is something that the reciever could absolutely not have achieved on his own.


I think morals go hand in hand with good intelligence, so I guess I do agree with your perspective, as you've written it.

So, u agree that an intelligent person does not require the fear of God? If no, why? If yes, why follow a religion at all [other than for social purposes]?

Ps. I realise that my previous post was quite convoluted [linguistically]. I was quite sleepy when I wrote it.

Hah! Tennis anyone? :bugeye:

Hehe. This was the funniest and best written post I have read so far on sciforums. Well done AI.

http://www.ktelegraf.com.ua/uploads/posts/2010-04/1270648625_sport.jpg

Watch out Fraggle, you have got some fine competition here.

aaqucnaona,


Yes.

Why?



When I became an atheist, I was faced by the question, If there is no God, why do good things and not do bad ones? I answered it: Because its in accordance with our inherent morality and it has awesome utilitarian advantages.


Couldn't you have come to the same conclusion if faced with the question
''if there IS God''?


As for it ''usefulness'', how do you explain the existence of people who don't
give a shit, or who only give a shit when it suit them?



Evolutionary explainations for the present of religion in hum an society lead me to this conclusion. Dawkins chaper on this topic, plus the book "Breaking the spell" are the basis for this inference.


Why do you accept ''evolutionary explanations'' of religion?



I dont think so. I cant be sure, but I think that supernatural or divine things are extremely unprobable.

Why do you?



However, if there is a conclusive rational evidence for their presence, something that cannot be explained by chance or natural explaination, I am willing to believe.


Just because everything may have a natural explanation for them, doesn't
mean nature is it's origin. IOW, unless you know everything, you cannot come to a real conclusion, so your position is one of belief.



So, all that's good is religious and theistic and all thats bad is irreligious and atheistic. How bloody convinent, considering you are a theist.


It's not a competition, and I'm not talking about how we describe ourselves.
I see theism and atheism more as solid states of being/living/acting (including mind). At one end of the spectrum we have theism (light), and at the other end we have atheism (dark), and in between are innumerable shades.



Tell me, do you always twist every definition to suit your needs? Like u did with religion and theism here and with slaughter being equated to sacrifice in your post to Aqueous Id?


It's not about the definitions, it is more about gaining more insight on what they actually are in relation to my life. I came into this world on my own, and I will leave it on my own. So I alone must make sense of it.
For me, pure religion is not a man made thing, and there is certainly no evidence that enforces that notion. So what is it, if NOT man made?
Have you thought of that?

Why do we believe in God? For explanations of why the natural world?
Nah, not me anyways.

If religion were trendy clubs to join, at one time, then the trend would have died out long ago, and new trends would have taken it's place. There IS more to pure religion, God, sprituality, and scriptures, than the current social engineers are telling us.



Btw, he has a post for you [#143].


I think I'll pass on that one.



Divine gift is something that the reciever could absolutely not have achieved on his own.


Like what?



So, u agree that an intelligent person does not require the fear of God? If no, why? If yes, why follow a religion at all [other than for social purposes]?


Requirement isn't the issue. Fear is a reaction to something. It's more about us than the thing we fear. With understanding on our part, that fear disintigrates.

The reasons for following a religion, are many as there are people who follow
a religion.



Ps. I realise that my previous post was quite convoluted [linguistically]. I was quite sleepy when I wrote it.

Did I hear you mention you were fifteen in another post?


jan.

Jan,


aaqucnaona


Why?

It was a part of my religion. I dont know why they [makers] put it there.




Couldn't you have come to the same conclusion if faced with the question
''if there IS God''?

Yes, but in that case it is pointless because even if you have come to another conclusion, you wouldn't do it.


As for it ''usefulness'', how do you explain the existence of people who don't
give a shit, or who only give a shit when it suit them?

Its called being eclectic. U do what's the best and most useful thing to do as long as you don't wrong anyone. I dont see any problem with such utilitarianism.



Why do you accept ''evolutionary explanations'' of religion?

For the same reason I think prophets are hallucinating when they have a revelation. Its a simpler, less assuming, more rational and more parsimonious model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model) than to think of a supernatural, conscious, natural law breaking "something" who actually cares at all about a bunch of hairless primates on a tiny rock in a corner of one of billions of galaxies.


Why do you?

For the same reason given to previous quote.



Just because everything may have a natural explanation for them, doesn't
mean nature is it's origin.

Partially true. Does pie exist? No. But its a naturalistically explained part of geometry. Its source is the human mind. And whats the source of that? We are not sure. But I would rather not follow the romans in that the lack of knowledge of the sun as a nuclear engine would lead them to conclude it to be a god riding in a chariot.


IOW, unless you know everything, you cannot come to a real conclusion, so your position is one of belief.

Yes it is. It is a simple faith baised belief. Fraggle put it well:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2865945&postcount=3



It's not a competition, and I'm not talking about how we describe ourselves.
I see theism and atheism more as solid states of being/living/acting (including mind). At one end of the spectrum we have theism (light), and at the other end we have atheism (dark), and in between are innumerable shades.

Then call them light and dark or good and evil. Its like calling roses and tulips by the names 'sun' and 'moon'. Or as chopra does it, calling bullshit 'quantum phenomenon'.



It's not about the definitions, it is more about gaining more insight on what they actually are in relation to my life. I came into this world on my own, and I will leave it on my own. So I alone must make sense of it.
For me, pure religion is not a man made thing, and there is certainly no evidence that enforces that notion. So what is it, if NOT man made?
Have you thought of that?

Almost all we know and think about is man made. Its passed through culture and are but models of the world, selected based on how well they describe it and how long and how well they stand the test of rational scepticism.


There IS more to pure religion, God, sprituality, and scriptures,

Yes, probably. But it is much more likely to be a placebo kinda thing than be the kind of supernatural explainations religions give us.


..than the current social engineers are telling us.

U think there is a conspiracy to materialise/naturalise the world? And that the opposite would be better?


I think I'll pass on that one.

That's a shame. Its very well written. But its your choice, so moving on.


Like what?

I can't think of anything. I am curious though, since you represent theists in this conversation, how would you describe a divine gift and what example would you give?



The reasons for following a religion, are many as there are people who follow
a religion.

Well said. I would agree and also add that for many people even in today's society, it is absolutely indispensable.


Did I hear you mention you were fifteen in another post?

Not that was shogun (http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=65063). I am 17.

aaqucnaona,



It was a part of my religion. I dont know why they [makers] put it there.

Obedience?
Compassion?
Or obedience that lead to compassion?



Yes, but in that case it is pointless because even if you have come to another conclusion, you wouldn't do it.


You're claiming that people of religious persuation are incapable of making decisions for themself. Why?



Its called being eclectic. U do what's the best and most useful thing to do as long as you don't wrong anyone. I dont see any problem with such utilitarianism.


You don't see anything wrong with people who don't give a shit about right and wrong?

What if an ''eclectic'' decides that it is right to wrong someone?
How does that sit with your ideals?



For the same reason I think prophets are hallucinating when they have a revelation.


Why do you think this?



Its a simpler, less assuming, more rational and more parsimonious model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model) than to think of a supernatural, conscious, natural law breaking "something" who actually cares at all about a bunch of hairless primates on a tiny rock in a corner of one of billions of galaxies.


And that is the extent of your reasoning?



Partially true. Does pie exist?

I take it you mean pi?
Otherwise, pies do exist.


No. But its a naturalistically explained part of geometry. Its source is the human mind. And whats the source of that? We are not sure. But I would rather not follow the romans in that the lack of knowledge of the sun as a nuclear engine would lead them to conclude it to be a god riding in a chariot.


IOW, you don't agree with Roman method of acquiring knowledge.
Have you really researched ''religion'', or just your understand of religion?



Yes it is. It is a simple faith baised belief. Fraggle put it well:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2865945&postcount=3


If I'm not mistaken Fraggle is what is termed as a ''strong atheist''.
You really think his explanation of religion, faith, and God, are objective, despite your belief?



Then call them light and dark or good and evil. Its like calling roses and tulips by the names 'sun' and 'moon'. Or as chopra does it, calling bullshit 'quantum phenomenon'.

I thought I did.
The terms have specific meanings, and it is those ''meanings'' I focus on, not the labels.



Almost all we know and think about is man made. Its passed through culture and are but models of the world, selected based on how well they describe it and how long and how well they stand the test of rational scepticism.


These models are understood through experience and intelligence which we have access to. The depth of this understanding stays with the individual while only a small part is expressed in such a way as we can understand without the actual experience.

By rational explanation with regard to God, I take it you mean ''I can't see God with my eyes, therefore God does not exist''?



Yes, probably. But it is much more likely to be a placebo kinda thing than be the kind of supernatural explainations religions give us.


What is your reason for thinking like this?



U think there is a conspiracy to materialise/naturalise the world? And that the opposite would be better?


I didn't say ''conspiracy''.
Read it again, but this time accept as I've written it.



That's a shame. Its very well written. But its your choice, so moving on.

Well written?
Not from my perspective. But if he/she has raised points which you would like
me to elaborate on, I will be more than happy.



I can't think of anything.


I didn't think you could.



I am curious though, since you represent theists in this conversation, how would you describe a divine gift and what example would you give?


A ''Divine Gift'' is anything that is given from the divine, I would imagine. But I don't see things in that way so you're probably asking the wrong person.



Well said. I would agree and also add that for many people even in today's society, it is absolutely indispensable.


That goes without saying.



Not that was shogun (http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=65063). I am 17.[/QUOTE]


Well so far, I like your outlook on religion, but the opening post doesn't seem to do you justice.

Maybe time will tell, eh! ;)


jan.

@Jan


aaqucnaona,


Obedience?
Compassion?
Or obedience that lead to compassion?

Both. I didnt try to reason about it back then.


You're claiming that people of religious persuation are incapable of making decisions for themself. Why?

No, I mean people of fundamentalist religious convictions do not make decisions for themselves in a rational, eclectic, non biased way.


You don't see anything wrong with people who don't give a shit about right and wrong?

Those are the people for whom I think religion to be indispensible.


What if an ''eclectic'' decides that it is right to wrong someone?How does that sit with your ideals?

Thats a fanatic. An eclectic [IMO] is someone who knows of and chooses from all available opitions without any bias and with rational critical thinking chooses the one with the best utilitarian function. Deciding to wrong someone is against human morality [indeed, against ape alturism] and I despise such people.


Why do you think this?

Your next quote has the answer.


And that is the extent of your reasoning?

I dont understand the question. Please elaborate.


I take it you mean pi?
Otherwise, pies do exist.

Yes, I mean Pi. My bad.


IOW, you don't agree with Roman method of acquiring knowledge.
Have you really researched ''religion'', or just your understand of religion?

This is what I know right now. One thing you should know is that I was a pantheist till this very month. I became an [tentative] atheist [about a personal god] just about 2nd -3rd this month and I am having a massive defragging of my brain since. I am reading books on philosophy, theology and atheism and watching documentaries and debates to make sense of my frame of mind. I must say though, I am willing to believe, if only some rational evidence, something inexplicable in any other way, be found, it can shift the probability of god towards yes. Then I am ready to accept that proposition.



If I'm not mistaken Fraggle is what is termed as a ''strong atheist''.
You really think his explanation of religion, faith, and God, are objective, despite your belief?

I dont think his post on faith was 'coloured' by his athiesm. I havent read enough of his posts to see how objective he is on other matters.


I thought I did.
The terms have specific meanings, and it is those ''meanings'' I focus on, not the labels.

Ok. The reason I objected was that it tends to look like conservatipedia's page on atheism, showing marx, hitler [a christian] and stalin but missing out Einstein or Sagan.


These models are understood through experience and intelligence which we have access to. The depth of this understanding stays with the individual while only a small part is expressed in such a way as we can understand without the actual experience.

Yes, individual experiences are hard to relate to by other people. But thats why we have models. Its something many people can test and try and see if it represents reality. If it represents all past and current observations and it stands the [sceptical] test of time,then until a better one comes along, the [earlier] model is a good way to look at the world. Which is why I would not have objected to the idea of god 2000 years ago.


By rational explanation with regard to God, I take it you mean ''I can't see God with my eyes, therefore God does not exist''?

No, I mean, if this event can be explained in a simple, parsimonious, rational way without having to assume to much, by just natural explainations, then this event does not support belief in the supernatural.


What is your reason for thinking like this?

Let me put it this way. What is more likely? That bobby had a revelation and realised god was made from spagetti or that bobby is making a false claim?
Same argument applies there. Why put a god where none is required? Just because one may want him to be there?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/PaleBlueDot.jpg

As Carl Sagan said:

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

And to reflect that the creator cares for one species on this little piece of matter.


I didn't say ''conspiracy''.
Read it again, but this time accept as I've written it.

Who are these social engieneers?


Well written?
Not from my perspective. But if he/she has raised points which you would like
me to elaborate on, I will be more than happy.

It was funny and was a good read. An imaginative journey with you around the globe, looking at world religions and navigating with a gyroscope. Nevermind.


A ''Divine Gift'' is anything that is given from the divine, I would imagine. But I don't see things in that way so you're probably asking the wrong person.

Your view is interesting. You are a theist, I think; but U don't indentify with any one religion. What exactly are your views on god, religion and theism?


Well so far, I like your outlook on religion, but the opening post doesn't seem to do you justice.

I had just become an atheist back then and my first reaction was hatred and repulsion against religious fundamentalism, absolutism, dogmatism, authoritarianism and its general trend to demand blind unquestioning irrational faith and suspension of reason and those feelings got through in my first few posts. As I read and watched more and conversed with people here, I became much more balanced and unprejudiced.

Hah! Tennis anyone?


Hehe. This was the funniest and best written post I have read so far on sciforums. Well done AI.


Glad you liked it. “I was just messing around,” cued by an earlier post. It is hard to have a frank discussion when the language itself becomes a quagmire. We started with what I thought was a pretty clear idea, your formulation of a prototypical culture that habituates to the ritual sacrifice offered to the gods in propitiation for some reward, such as the daily sunrise. You reasoned that this irrational belief was probably intertwined with a number of rational beliefs, making it likely that the young upstarts would not necessarily discern truth from fable, and therefore they would be inclined to accept whatever the teaching prescribed. As a result, a vicious cycle appears to have been created, in which false beliefs continue to propagate from generation to generation.

When I said you were clear, one thing I meant is that you used words in the common usage which any English speaker could readily construe properly. Even the non-English speakers would likely understand precisely what you meant because words like “gods”, “religion”, and “sacrifice” are universals for which there are (in most languages) one-to-one correspondences between the English term and the non-English term. Obviously there are exceptions.

The next link is the chain is the capacity of the person posting. It’s done through a user interface, so the user has a demonstrated capacity to use common English. Yet here we see the the common usage has been substituted with a non-standard specific meaning. which insinuates fallacy and confusion into the dialogue.

Normally this would just get written off as bad argument, or if it starts to flame, it gets flagged. Here we have an interesting permutation on that, with the Fallacy of Definition holding hands and walking down the isle with Sanctity. It reminds me a little of the terrorist using human shields in a tactical setting.

No one wants to attack sanctity, but gross disingenuousness is fair game. So, like the hostage negotiator, you don’t want to concede (to fallacy) and yet you want to uphold what is sacred. It converts every question into a loaded question, giving the arguer an opportunity to build castle walls out of unlikely materials, such as the carcasses of slaughterhouse victims.
The same principle that finds animal cruelty evil should also recognize deception as a gateway drug. So I am left to wonder: why not advocate for sanctity using honest argument?

I was just messing around, to illustrate the semantic game that unfolded with the use of personal definitions. I have set the stage for an honest admission that the fallacies were also just a game – or, maybe even something valid, such an outcry of sentiment. For example, does is express a sense of hopelessness that common speech can not convey the personal religious experience, so, perhaps fallacy is a mechanism or last resort?

Oh, and as far as the track event picture – I think the cheetahs are going to get a run for their money. I got a good starting position in the 1m event, check out that defensive shield:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Florida_Box_Turtle_Digon3_re-edited.jpg/250px-Florida_Box_Turtle_Digon3_re-edited.jpg

Glad you liked it.

Btw, I have a thread I would like you to read:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2878614#post2878614

Ps. Will reply to your post [here] soon.

aaqucnaona,



No, I mean people of fundamentalist religious convictions do not make decisions for themselves in a rational, eclectic, non biased way.


Example?



Those are the people for whom I think religion to be indispensible.


These people don't give a shit about right and wrong?
Example?




What if an ''eclectic'' decides that it is right to wrong someone?
How does that sit with your ideals?




Thats a fanatic.


How do work that one out?




An eclectic [IMO] is someone who knows of and chooses from all available opitions without any bias and with rational critical thinking chooses the one with the best utilitarian function.


At some point, an eclectic, stops being an eclectic. If one doesn't, then one becomes indecisive, unreliable, and untrustworthy.

How do you know religious fundamentalists weren't eclectic before deciding their path?



Deciding to wrong someone is against human morality [indeed, against ape alturism] and I despise such people.


And, an ''eclectic'' never, ever, decides to wrong people?



Your next quote has the answer.


How did you reason that the Prophets i.e Muhammad, were hallucinating?



I dont understand the question. Please elaborate.



Its a simpler, less assuming, more rational and more parsimonious model than to think of a supernatural, conscious, natural law breaking "something" who actually cares at all about a bunch of hairless primates on a tiny rock in a corner of one of billions of galaxies.


Please explain this.



Yes, I mean Pi. My bad.


No probs, I make those kind of errors all the time.



This is what I know right now. One thing you should know is that I was a pantheist till this very month. I became an [tentative] atheist [about a personal god] just about 2nd -3rd this month and I am having a massive defragging of my brain since.


So why make such big claims?



I am willing to believe, if only some rational evidence, something inexplicable in any other way, be found, it can shift the probability of god towards yes. Then I am ready to accept that proposition.


IOW, you are an atheist, and as such you have decided NOT to believe in God.



I dont think his post on faith was 'coloured' by his athiesm.


Why not?



Ok. The reason I objected was that it tends to look like conservatipedia's page on atheism, showing marx, hitler [a christian] and stalin but missing out Einstein or Sagan.


I think we're alot more complex than the labels which give ourselves.



Yes, individual experiences are hard to relate to by other people. But thats why we have models. Its something many people can test and try and see if it represents reality. If it represents all past and current observations and it stands the [sceptical] test of time,then until a better one comes along, the [earlier] model is a good way to look at the world. Which is why I would not have objected to the idea of god 2000 years ago.


What do you mean by ''...look at the world''?

So for you God doesn't exist, and you think this way because you've looked at models of the world, and you conclude that God is an outdated concept?



No, I mean, if this event can be explained in a simple, parsimonious, rational way without having to assume to much, by just natural explainations, then this event does not support belief in the supernatural.


So, a convincing argument triumphs over what is actually true, because the truth is too complicated?



Let me put it this way. What is more likely? That bobby had a revelation and realised god was made from spagetti or that bobby is making a false claim?
Same argument applies there. Why put a god where none is required? Just because one may want him to be there?


So you're convinced that there is no such thing as ''supernatural'', and , there has never been a supernatural event in the history of this universe?




And to reflect that the creator cares for one species on this little piece of matter.


Why do think the creator cares only for one species?
And why do you think the creator wouldn't care for tiny insignigicant selves?



Who are these social engieneers?

I don't know.



It was funny and was a good read. An imaginative journey with you around the globe, looking at world religions and navigating with a gyroscope. Nevermind.

Well, whatever floats your boat, but one things for sure, religion wasn't being looked at.



Your view is interesting. You are a theist, I think; but U don't indentify with any one religion. What exactly are your views on god, religion and theism?


My view on God is simple, just look in any scripture, the vedas in particular (as it is very in depth)

My view on religion, is that there is ''pure religion'', in the east it known as ''Sanatan Dharma'' (the eternal occupation of the soul). That is the highest form. I look for that connection whenever a person claims to be religious.



I had just become an atheist back then and my first reaction was hatred and repulsion against religious fundamentalism, absolutism, dogmatism, authoritarianism and its general trend to demand blind unquestioning irrational faith and suspension of reason and those feelings got through in my first few posts. As I read and watched more and conversed with people here, I became much more balanced and unprejudiced.


Good for you.
I hope it lasts.

jan.

@Jan


aaqucnaona,


Example?

Creationists.


These people don't give a shit about right and wrong?
Example?

No. I mean people who don't give a shit about right and wrong should not be atheists. A fear of god is the one thing that can keep them in line.


How do work that one out?

Fanatic - noun. A person motivated by irrational enthusiasm.

A person who doesn't care about right or wrong fits this category, at least informally.


At some point, an eclectic, stops being an eclectic. If one doesn't, then one becomes indecisive, unreliable, and untrustworthy.

I agree. Knowing this limit is the most important thing for an eclectic.


How do you know religious fundamentalists weren't eclectic before deciding their path?

They may have been. But a true fundamenatlist can only be one indoctrinated since childhood [as in OP]. An eclectic would realise that evolution is the right thing to believe, not creationism. He may totally believe the central dogmas of his religion, but then he as not an eclectic anymore, since he has a dogma. Thus, an eclectic would never become a dogmatic fundamentalist - like extreme right wing conservatives and islamic jihadists.


And, an ''eclectic'' never, ever, decides to wrong people?

No. Well, not quite. An eclectic may wrong someone for the greater good. But he will know the limits, unlike fundamentalists who would do anything, including killing someone, if their dogma states so, and will do it against their better judgement. Which is why moderates are the only type of religious people we would want in today's world.


How did you reason that the Prophets i.e Muhammad, were hallucinating?

Ok. Lets examine the claim.
First, there exists a supernatural part to our universe, transcendent but omnipresent, from which forces and things interfere with our world. This predicts inexplicable and forever unknowable things happen that cannot be explained by the counterclaim.
A man in a cave is visited by one such 'thing' - an angel. The angel tells him a few things and he remembers it.
He later somehow gets it on paper and we have the word of god.

Lets examine the counterclaim.
There is no supernatural component to the universe. All that is directly observable is all that is. So the prediction is that nothing should occur that cannot be explained with this claim in mind.

Now lets test the event.
If the claim is true, well that's that.
But if the counterclaim is true, based on many thousands of years of observation of natural laws, we have a database of scientifc information, which covers, describes and explains all known observations. Accordingly,
A man is in a cave. He is hungry, tired and deprived of normal sensations. In such states his biochemistry and neurobiology is very vulnerable to mistakes and problems in their functioning. We know the human mind to be very apt at making convincing illusions.

Looking at the claims and the current knowledge as it applies to the event, it is more rational to believe he was hallucinating. It requires much less assumptions and has no external [to this event] data that is not in agreement with the current knowledge of the natural world.

Since model 2, with the claim of naturalism, makes a better model in the given circumstances, I choose it to be the correct model to apply to this event and further conclude that this event does not give credence to claim no 1, of a supernature element to the universe.

Hence, I think think prophets are likely to be hallucinating.


Please explain this.

I was extending the above analogy to the anthropocentric idea that a single species on a single planet should be important at a universal scale.


So why make such big claims?

I dont understand the question.



IOW, you are an atheist, and as such you have decided NOT to believe in God.

Yes. That would be a weak, explict atheist. Weak - no counter claim for existence of god. Explict - claims for god considered and consciously rejected.


Why not?

His posts seem to be highly objective, well informed and rational.


I think we're alot more complex than the labels which give ourselves.

Agreed and resolved.


What do you mean by ''...look at the world''?

Look at the word means to consider the model to be how the world is. Hence,the model is a good way to look at the world, means this model is a good representative of the way the world is.


So for you God doesn't exist, and you think this way because you've looked at models of the world, and you conclude that God is an outdated concept?

Yes. If god can be put in todays models, or models better than the ones today, I am willing to believe in him.


So, a convincing argument triumphs over what is actually true, because the truth is too complicated?

Yes. Until we can come up with a better model that represents the truth more than the current one, the one we have is the best we have. Until then, there is no way to access or confirm this 'too complicated' truth. Its the only way to overcome the age old question. "How do we know what we know?" and further "We can we be sure it is true?"


So you're convinced that there is no such thing as ''supernatural'', and , there has never been a supernatural event in the history of this universe?

No. I think there has never been an event we know of for which a supernatural explanation is given and could not be better explained, at least in theory, but natural explanations.


Why do think the creator cares only for one species?
And why do you think the creator wouldn't care for tiny insignigicant selves?

I mean, the god of islam doesn't care for christian and the muslims are convinced that is the truth. You yourself you admit this is a ridiculous notion. That was what I was meaning to say.


I don't know.

I mean, what are they? Politicians, doctors, engineers, city planners, economists, religious leaders?


Well, whatever floats your boat, but one things for sure, religion wasn't being looked at.

Agreed. He was looking at the curious way in which you were using words in contexts they are not usually found.



My view on God is simple, just look in any scripture, the vedas in particular (as it is very in depth)

My view on religion, is that there is ''pure religion'', in the east it known as ''Sanatan Dharma'' (the eternal occupation of the soul). That is the highest form. I look for that connection whenever a person claims to be religious.

Ok. But as far as I know, this is not a actual institutionalised religion. It is perhaps, what you call a 'private religion'.



Good for you.
I hope it lasts.
Dont Worry. I am an eclectic. Once I get something right I am unlikely to get it wrong. *humility*
But boasting aside, I dont think of religion to be bad anymore. I think of it as unnecessary but acceptable in moderate amounts.

Ps. The part for prophet hallucination is also in a new thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111662

Oh, and as far as the track event picture – I think the cheetahs are going to get a run for their money.

Ok then. Next competitor:
http://img1.bbs.163.com/new/20111113/chuishui/gy/gykloooip/b87eafc258f3bc2b361737b28b093c45.jpg

aaqucnaona,




Creationists.


Can you elaborate on that?



No. I mean people who don't give a shit about right and wrong should not be atheists. A fear of god is the one thing that can keep them in line.


I'm confused.



Fanatic - noun. A person motivated by irrational enthusiasm.

A person who doesn't care about right or wrong fits this category, at least informally.


You think an eclectic is incapable of not caring about right or wrong, or being
a fanatic?



I agree. Knowing this limit is the most important thing for an eclectic.


Isn't everyone eclectic till they arrive at the limit?



They may have been. But a true fundamenatlist can only be one indoctrinated since childhood [as in OP].


Can only?
Indoctrination is the opposite of being fundamental. To be such, one needs to
be able to break from indoctrination. Unless of course you equate fanatism and religious fundamentalism.



An eclectic would realise that evolution is the right thing to believe, not creationism.


Why would one?



He may totally believe the central dogmas of his religion, but then he as not an eclectic anymore, since he has a dogma. Thus, an eclectic would never become a dogmatic fundamentalist - like extreme right wing conservatives and islamic jihadists.


Mmmm...!



No. Well, not quite. An eclectic may wrong someone for the greater good. But he will know the limits, unlike fundamentalists who would do anything, including killing someone, if their dogma states so, and will do it against their better judgement. Which is why moderates are the only type of religious people we would want in today's world.


Wow...! :eek:



Ok. Lets examine the claim.
First, there exists a supernatural part to our universe, transcendent but omnipresent, from which forces and things interfere with our world. This predicts inexplicable and forever unknowable things happen that cannot be explained by the counterclaim.
A man in a cave is visited by one such 'thing' - an angel. The angel tells him a few things and he remembers it.
He later somehow gets it on paper and we have the word of god.


Doesn't explain why think he was hallucinating.




Lets examine the counterclaim.
There is no supernatural component to the universe. All that is directly observable is all that is. So the prediction is that nothing should occur that cannot be explained with this claim in mind.


Your in a field, the size of Alaska. You are completely blind, or it is completely dark. You begin to be curious, wanting to know where you are, what you are, how you came to be, and your relation to everything. You begin to use your senses, to make sense of your surroundings. Everything you think you know, constitutes your world, and as such the world IS everything you know, and think you know.

Claiming that there is NO supernatural component (whatever that really means) does nothing to explain anything. All that is directly observable, does nothing to explain anything except only that which HAS been observed.
So far you are exposing your dogmatic nature.



If the claim is true, well that's that.
But if the counterclaim is true, based on many thousands of years of observation of natural laws, we have a database of scientifc information, which covers, describes and explains all known observations.

So you're saying, we now know that Muhammad was hallucinating?
And there is no God?



Accordingly,
A man is in a cave. He is hungry, tired and deprived of normal sensations. In such states his biochemistry and neurobiology is very vulnerable to mistakes and problems in their functioning. We know the human mind to be very apt at making convincing illusions.



Et Voila !, the icing on top of the dogmatic cake.
It would be far more intelligent to just accept that you don't believe it, and try not to offer an explanation of something you have no interest in, or even care to understand.

So far you have, Muhammad was hallucinating, because he was hallucinating, mixed with, Muhammad was hallucinating because I haven't had such an experience, therefore it cannot exist. Mixed with God doesn't exist because I haven't seen Him, God is supernatural, and as the supernatural doesn't exist because of all the scientific observation, Muhammad must have been hallucinating.



Looking at the claims and the current knowledge as it applies to the event, it is more rational to believe he was hallucinating. It requires much less assumptions and has no external [to this event] data that is not in agreement with the current knowledge of the natural world.


The current knowledge is insufficient in much the same way the knowledge offered by a flower arranger is insufficient in designing a new engine.
IOW, science and spirituality are different disciplines.

It's rational to accept that, as you have not had such an experience, that you don't know. It's irrational to use that ignorance to make a conclusion, to believe that conclusion, and seek to suppress other ideaologies, or scriptures that contradict your opininion.



Since model 2, with the claim of naturalism, makes a better model in the given circumstances, I choose it to be the correct model to apply to this event and further conclude that this event does not give credence to claim no 1, of a supernature element to the universe.
Hence, I think think prophets are likely to be hallucinating.


I'm afraid it's a case of The Emporers New Clothes.



I was extending the above analogy to the anthropocentric idea that a single species on a single planet should be important at a universal scale.


IOW, you was looking at it from your perspective.



His posts seem to be highly objective, well informed and rational.


I agree, they do. But that doesn't answer the question.
And have you considered the idea that alot of things aren't what they seem.



Yes. If god can be put in todays models, or models better than the ones today, I am willing to believe in him.


IOW, you don't want to believe in God.
You wont agree with me, but that's is what you're actually, without saying it directly.




Yes. Until we can come up with a better model that represents the truth more than the current one, the one we have is the best we have.


You have put yourself at the mercy of the mainstream.



No. I think there has never been an event we know of for which a supernatural explanation is given and could not be better explained, at least in theory, but natural explanations.


Can you give a better explanation than ''life comes from life''?



I mean, the god of islam doesn't care for christian and the muslims are convinced that is the truth. You yourself you admit this is a ridiculous notion. That was what I was meaning to say.


It's obvious that you're not versed in what or who God is (or supposed to be, depending on your POV). Much like every explicit atheist I've come across, read, or heard. But then again, why is that not surprising? :shrug:



I mean, what are they? Politicians, doctors, engineers, city planners, economists, religious leaders?


Idealists in the position the carry out their ideals.



Agreed. He was looking at the curious way in which you were using words in contexts they are not usually found.


You mean like, there is no animal sacrifice in the slaughterhouses, only to gods?

So what makes the word sacrifice appropriate, the slaughter of the animal, or, the purpose behind the slaughter?





My view on God is simple, just look in any scripture, the vedas in particular (as it is very in depth)

My view on religion, is that there is ''pure religion'', in the east it known as ''Sanatan Dharma'' (the eternal occupation of the soul). That is the highest form. I look for that connection whenever a person claims to be religious



Ok. But as far as I know, this is not a actual institutionalised religion. It is perhaps, what you call a 'private religion'.


Or to be more specific, you're currently out of your depth, so you bury your head in sand.



But boasting aside, I dont think of religion to be bad anymore. I think of it as unnecessary but acceptable in moderate amounts.

I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way.


jan.

Quiz time. Name this fallacy: :scratchin:



I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way.

Quiz time. Name this fallacy: :scratchin:

Its the fallacy of equivocation!

http://kevinmartineau.ca/wp-content/uploads/Why-celebrate.jpg

Yes I win [Do I?]

What do I win?

Its the fallacy of equivocation!

Yes I win [Do I?]

What do I win?


You've been duped again.
Where/what is the actual fallacy?

jan.

I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way

Oh dear. We have got ourselves I quite a knot haven't we.
I will answer your post but will you first answer:

Where did I go wrong with the Prophet thing? Is is dogmatic to believe only that which has evidence or is atleast more likely than other competing claims?
What do you think of prophets?


So far you have, Muhammad was hallucinating, because he was hallucinating, mixed with, Muhammad was hallucinating because I haven't had such an experience, therefore it cannot exist. Mixed with God doesn't exist because I haven't seen Him, God is supernatural, and as the supernatural doesn't exist because of all the scientific observation, Muhammad must have been hallucinating.

You make it sound dogmatic and irrational [which is how it must have felt to you]. Again, please answer my questions above.



The current knowledge is insufficient in much the same way the knowledge offered by a flower arranger is insufficient in designing a new engine.

So it that's true, whatever one may want to believe is true? In absence of a proven hypothesis, all proposed hypothesis are equally true?


I'm afraid it's a case of The Emporers New Clothes.

How is it? 'given cirsumstances', 'till a better model', 'likely' - sounds like a dogmatic inference to you? Its completely tentative!


IOW, you was looking at it from your perspective.

Ok. What is your perspective. I honestly confess I dont understand your position on this.


IOW, you don't want to believe in God.
You wont agree with me, but that's is what you're actually, without saying it directly.

In a way yes. I would not believe in the current circumstances. In order to convince you this disbeilief is not a faithbased or dogmatic assertion, I told you what can change my mind:
If god can be put in models better than the ones today, I am willing to believe in him.


You have put yourself at the mercy of the mainstream.

That mainstream is the only way to tell the difference between yoga and deepak chopra. It may be slightly restrictive to flights of fancy, but it is reliable.


Can you give a better explanation than ''life comes from life''?

Abiogenesis. Hm... Another one of those...
Well. Early life was hardly life by todays standards. Like prions. But yes, life does come from a less life-like state to the ones we see today.


It's obvious that you're not versed in what or who God is (or supposed to be, depending on your POV). Much like every explicit atheist I've come across, read, or heard. But then again, why is that not surprising?

No. You got me wrong. That was not an attack on theism, it was an attack on literal religious fundamentalism. Do you support it?


Or to be more specific, you're currently out of your depth, so you bury your head in sand.

:eek:
Ad hom! I did get you very cross didn't I? I know about the vedas and am familiar with jain and buddhist philosophies. I know what you said by ''Sanatan Dharma''. I was merely pointing out that an non-anthromorphic, cross-religious ideology like your is not institutionalised or largely popular. How does that suggest out of my depth. If I am wrong, do correct me by all means.


I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way.

:jawdrop:
Ok. You got very mad indeed.
No, stalin didn't feel that way. 'Opiate of the masses' is hardly what I think of religion to be.

:huh:

You've been duped again.
Where/what is the actual fallacy?

jan.

You equalised an athiest with a marxist. Though reading your post, I can understand how you thought so.

How am I duped?

aaqucnaona,




I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way



Oh dear. We have got ourselves I quite a knot haven't we.
I will answer your post but will you first answer:


Are you saying you have nothing in common with Stalin, regarding religious views? Or is it that you don't want to be asociated with with him?



Where did I go wrong with the Prophet thing? Is is dogmatic to believe only that which has evidence or is atleast more likely than other competing claims?


Well, yeah, especially when the dicipline used to gain said evidence, is totally insufficient (to say the least).



What is your explaination?

That's irrelevant.



Putting words in my mouth, eh? Its not about me. Its what the entire species has documented over millenniums. All the 'I's you used there are backed by hard facts, observations and evidences of the entire human race.


No there isn't.
You're talking nonsense.



So it that's true, whatever one may want to believe is true? In absence of a proven hypothesis, all proposed hypothesis are equally true?


You're making the mistake that the knowledge that can be found via science, is the only knowledge there is. I'm all for science, but it has nothing to do with spirituality, unless your idea of spirituality is meat.



How is it? 'given cirsumstances', 'till a better model', 'likely' - sounds like a dogmatic inference to you? Its completely tentative!


That's like saying I'm not going to drive a car untill one has been designed by a flower arranger. How long before you get to drive, do you think?



Ok. What is your perspective. I honestly confess I dont understand your position on this.


I've given you my perspective so many times.
The trouble is you can't see it.



In a way yes. I would not believe in the current circumstances. In order to convince you this disbeilief is not a faithbased or dogmatic assertion, I told you what can change my mind:
If god can be put in models better than the ones today, I am willing to believe in him.


You have chosen something that will never, ever, happen, to be the basis of whether you believe in God or not.


jan.

.

Ok. Can we postpone this debate and you tell me what your beliefs are, what is your position of knowledge and its certainity and what are your views on spirituality?
In return I will lay out my own [if you want] and then we would continue this discussion without talking at cross-purposes.

Ok. Can we postpone this debate and you tell me what your beliefs are, what is your position of knowledge and its certainity and what are your views on spirituality?
In return I will lay out my own [if you want] and then we would continue this discussion without talking at cross-purposes.


I am a theist, and I believe in God, not any god.

I don't know what you mean by ''position of knowledge and its certainity''.

My main view on sprituality is I am a spirit-soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul (God).

There are small details throughtout our conversation, that fill in the dots.

jan.

I am a theist, and I believe in God, not any god.

I don't know what you mean by ''position of knowledge and its certainity''.

My main view on sprituality is I am a spirit-soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul (God).

There are small details throughtout our conversation, that fill in the dots.

jan.

Ok, that's clear and simple.

''position of knowledge and its certainity'' means [since you seem to disapprove of the scientific method], how do you propose knowledge should be gained? And how do you make sure its the truth?

Ok, that's clear and simple.

''position of knowledge and its certainity'' means [since you seem to disapprove of the scientific method], how do you propose knowledge should be gained? And how do you make sure its the truth?


I don't disaprove of the scientific method.
It just cannot be used reveal truth or real spirituality, so when someone
uses it to say it shows God does not exist, I simply point out the distinctions.


jan.

I don't disaprove of the scientific method.
It just cannot be used reveal truth or real spirituality, so when someone
uses it to say it shows God does not exist, I simply point out the distinctions.


jan.

Ok. That leaves only one last question before we may resume some conversation.

How [but what ways] do you find 'truth' [btw, what kind of truth are you talking about] and spiritual facts about God? And how do you make sure it is the correct version?

Ok. That leaves only one last question before we may resume some conversation.

How [but what ways] do you find 'truth' [btw, what kind of truth are you talking about] and spiritual facts about God? And how do you make sure it is the correct version?



Truth 'IS'.
I think we only have to adjust our position.
I don't think truth is somewhere else.

jan.

Quiz time. Name this fallacy: :scratchin:

Come on AI, put me out of my misery.
What's the answer?

jan.

Truth 'IS'.
I think we only have to adjust our position.
I don't think truth is somewhere else.

jan.

OK. So truth 'IS'. How do we know it [or become aware of it]? Meditation? Phiolosophy? Religion?

OK. So truth 'IS'. How do we know it [or become aware of it]? Meditation? Phiolosophy? Religion?

Anything that makes us see things as they are.
It can be anything at all, even the slightest thing to jog the memory.

jan.

Anything that makes us see things as they are.
It can be anything at all, even the slightest thing to jog the memory.

jan.

Come one Jan, thats way too vague. I understand you trying to feel this mystic [not mystical] wonder of intuition - but in this cruel, hard world this cannot work that way. Imagine David Icke telling you the reptilian truth. There has to be someway of knowing whether the truth is real - anyway will do [no insistence on science].

Come one Jan, thats way too vague. I understand you trying to feel this mystic [not mystical] wonder of intuition - but in this cruel, hard world this cannot work that way. Imagine David Icke telling you the reptilian truth. There has to be someway of knowing whether the truth is real - anyway will do [no insistence on science].


Ok. What is truth? To you.

jan.

Ok. What is truth? To you.

jan.

Ok. First of all, I do have a [slight] scientific sceptical bais, but its the only way to be sure.

Ok. So truth:
Truth is a fact, observation, explaination or system of information about anything. This truth is objective and [maybe] knowable. It can change according to the conditions affect that, about which it gives some knowledge.
Example. Size of the earth compared to the sun.

Dict. - Truth - n. -
1. A fact that has been verified
2. Conformity to reality or actuality
3. The quality of being near to the*true value

Reality/Actuality -
1. The state of actually existing objectively.
2.The state of being actual or real [very helpful! Lol]

Knowing truth:
Now, even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguard as truth is really the [objective] truth.
So we do modeling.
We look at subjective observations. We find recurrent threads. We imagine a reason or hypothesis about those observations.
This hypothesis is the idea that claims to be the truth and before we accept it as such we test it to see if it 'fits'. [Initiution can be used at this stage or just in this process].
The Hypothesis is used to explain all observation. It is used to make predictions and if each of this steps supports it; and nothing challenging it is equally strong [in its support], then for the time being, we can accept this idea to be true.

So yes, its a scientific process, but its the same as what you proposed, with a sceptical filter attached.

That's my stand on truth.

Ps. Without using the scientific method [as you insist with spirituality], what do you think should be done to be certain that the idea you had is indeed the objective truth.

Any comments? And
what is truth to you?

You have just said:


Truth 'IS'.
I think we only have to adjust our position.
I don't think truth is somewhere else.

Please elaborate.

,aaqucnaona,



Ok. So truth:
Truth is a fact, observation, explaination or system of information about anything. This truth is objective and [maybe] knowable. It can change according to the conditions affect that, about which it gives some knowledge.
Example. Size of the earth compared to the sun.


While what you say may be true, it is not ''the truth''.
The 'truth' is the origin of everything. It is what remains, and is present everywhere, everytime, and beyond. The ''truth'' is not dependant on our
acknowledgement of it.



Dict. - Truth - n. -
1. A fact that has been verified
2. Conformity to reality or actuality
3. The quality of being near to the*true value

Reality/Actuality -
1. The state of actually existing objectively.
2.The state of being actual or real [very helpful! Lol]


Sure, this is an explanation of ''truth'', but is not really different than the term
''fact'', IOW, it relies upon us relating to it.



Knowing truth:
Now, even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguard as truth is really the [objective] truth.


The truth must be beyond ideas, hunches, and feelings.
The truth is not ''out there'', it's the origin of everything, including ourselves.
It's merely a matter of alignment of our consciousness, IMO.



This hypothesis is the idea that claims to be the truth and before we accept it as such we test it to see if it 'fits'. [Initiution can be used at this stage or just in this process].


To get a truthful analasys, all the people involved in the process of revelation
must be without blemish, or bias. Even if we start out ever-so-slightly off, with regard to information, and we decide to follow, we will not know the truth.



That's my stand on truth.

Ps. Without using the scientific method [as you insist with spirituality], what do you think should be done to be certain that the idea you had is indeed the objective truth.


I think that if we have to check, and re-check to see if the idea we have is indeed the truth, maybe it's not the truth. The truth IS, therefore if we come in alignment with it, then we become part of it.


jan.

@Jan


aaqucnaona



While what you say may be true, it is not ''the truth''.
The 'truth' is the origin of everything. It is what remains, and is present everywhere, everytime, and beyond. The ''truth'' is not dependant on our
acknowledgement of it.

Ok.


Sure, this is an explanation of ''truth'', but is not really different than the term
''fact'', IOW, it relies upon us relating to it.

'Objective' - Jan? Relies upon us? A fact is something we know, its a subjective interpretation od our perception of a fact. That a long way from objective truth. And you equate them like mice and rats.


The truth must be beyond ideas, hunches, and feelings.
The truth is not ''out there'', it's the origin of everything, including ourselves.
It's merely a matter of alignment of our consciousness, IMO.

I said:
"Even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguarded as truth is really the [objective] truth."
Is this truth some version of universal consciousness or something similiar?
Is that what you mean by the alignment of the consciousness? Pls explain.


To get a truthful analasys, all the people involved in the process of revelation
must be without blemish, or bias. Even if we start out ever-so-slightly off, with regard to information, and we decide to follow, we will not know the truth.

What is this process of revelation? Surely you have something in mind [as you define revelation] that it is not just some flash of intiution.




I think that if we have to check, and re-check to see if the idea we have is indeed the truth, maybe it's not the truth. The truth IS, therefore if we come in alignment with it, then we become part of it.

And how exactly do we know if our consciouness is in the correct alignment and if we have become a part of the truth.
Dammit Jan. You are making me sound like a new ager.
But, like I said, how [please be at least vaguely specific] do you make sure that your truth is indeed the truth? What is the method to do so?

I am more confused than ever. My brain is now a egg salad [officially]. Please disentangle my grey matter, will you?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DfavS4NRPzo/TVJmR5yczQI/AAAAAAAAAFU/MMolQVnTRZw/s1600/clutter+brain.jpg

aaqucnaona,



'Objective' - Jan? Relies upon us? A fact is something we know, its a subjective interpretation od our perception of a fact. That a long way from objective truth. And you equate them like mice and rats.

???



I said:
"Even if the truth isn't out there and can be accessed by the mind, in and of it self, this method cannot tell us if this idea be reguarded as truth is really the [objective] truth."


There IS an exact measurement of the distance between the sun and the earth. We can work out an approximate distance.
So, here we have a difference between ''the truth'' and ''objective truth''.




Is this truth some version of universal consciousness or something similiar?
Is that what you mean by the alignment of the consciousness? Pls explain.


The truth IS.
Just think about that before you respond.
Try and understand what it means.



What is this process of revelation? Surely you have something in mind [as you define revelation] that it is not just some flash of intiution.


Whatever process we use to acertain the truth.



And how exactly do we know if our consciouness is in the correct alignment and if we have become a part of the truth.


How do you know if you've had enough to eat, or catch a ball??



Dammit Jan. You are making me sound like a new ager.


I think you should really give what I'm saying some serious thought before you
respond. It all begins with an understanding of truth.
Can you tell me anything that is truth, no matter how subjective?
And I'll bet I can relate to it.



But, like I said, how [please be at least vaguely specific] do you make sure that your truth is indeed the truth? What is the method to do so?


Read above.



I am more confused than ever. My brain is now a egg salad [officially]. Please disentangle my grey matter, will you?


I suggest you stop trying to prove me wrong for the moment, and consider
what I'm saying. It will become clear. :)


jan.

aaqucnaona,
I suggest you stop trying to prove me wrong for the moment, and consider
what I'm saying. It will become clear. :)


jan.

What you are saying is this:
Whatever feels true to you, really truelly true to you is the truth whose only property you list is that it exists.

I have absolutely nothing to go on. What do I understand? Is there a philosophy, a book or an article which can familiarise you with what you think?
I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to understand your superweird thoughts on some eternal truth that can be felt like satiation [for which actual mechanisms exist]. Sorry if my scepticism looks like I am trying to prove you wrong.

Please, give me some detail. I dont get what do you mean by "Truth Is" except that it exists. Please elaborate. Pour all your thoughts on truth on this thread, would you please?

aaqucnaona,


What you are saying is this:
Whatever feels true to you, really truelly true to you is the truth whose only property you list is that it exists.


No. That's not what I'm saying.
What I, or anyone thinks, or feels, has nothing to do with what actually IS.



I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to understand your superweird thoughts on some eternal truth that can be felt like satiation [for which actual mechanisms exist]. Sorry if my scepticism looks like I am trying to prove you wrong.


Do you agree that there is an exact distance between the sun and the earth, regardless of whether we know it or not?


jan.

What I, or anyone thinks, or feels, has nothing to do with what actually IS.

Agreed.



Do you agree that there is an exact distance between the sun and the earth, regardless of whether we know it or not?

Of course. But whats your point here? That's not something one can know by aligning one's consciousness - you require astronomy, maths, physics and the scientific method and even after all that trouble you can never get the real actual exact distance.

What I, or anyone thinks, or feels, has nothing to do with what actually IS.

Of course it has. We are not aliens in this Universe!

Of course it has. We are not aliens in this Universe!

No it doesnt. Unless you physically manipulate something, the facts and observations of the universe are completely independant of those would learn or think about them. They, as Jan puts it, just 'are', careless about us unless we interact with them, not by making observations but by producing causal changes. Until you can go to jupiter and change its weather systems, the great red spot is totally independent of us.

No it doesnt.

Then we don't exist; or we are completely irrelevant in every respect, including as far as we ourselves and the people we interact with are concerned.

Jan,





But boasting aside, I dont think of religion to be bad anymore. I think of it as unnecessary but acceptable in moderate amounts.


I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way.



Quiz time. Name this fallacy:


I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way.



Come on AI, put me out of my misery.
What's the answer?
jan.


Oh hi. Almost missed that.

I was thinking you might take a shot at it, but I see you are passing the buck, so I will pick it up:

Aaqucnaona gave a value statement about religion: unnecessary but acceptable in moderation. From this we conclude that a reference was made to the harm of religious extremism. That’s fair and not only reasonable but generally accepted as fact. (High-five to Aaqucnaona :cheers: ).

Your reply, that Stalin must have felt the same way is fallacious, because Stalin was the extremist. Stalin massacred millions of human beings in the most painful and vicious manner conceivable. Let’s put this in perspective since in your prior discussion with me you were expressing compassion for animal life:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0GCKgHhy0Ir1RyX78IQlO659-KfROty6QZPUvObCxAhu_oEewjQ

Multiply this by several hundred thousand and you get the scope of his atrocities. Of course you already know this, but as we all are prone to our counterfeit nature, that’s offered in adjustment.

Furthermore, casting Stalin in the light of atheism, commits the specific fallacy I had in mind, cherry-picking. You are cherry-picking in avoidance of his causal characteristics (despotism, megalomania, psychopathy), and you are cherry-picking him from among millions of typical moderate people. In other words, why not say Carl Sagan must have felt the same way? Because you wanted to complete a link between atheism and atrocity, or, in other words, to impugn atheism for Stalin’s atrocity. This commits the fallacy of guilt by association. Fallacy compounded.

I would have given you a 100 on the quiz if you’d said cherry-picking, plus 50 bonus points for noticing the guilt by association. You could have redeemed these points in future (should the spirit move you) discussions with me :D.

Of course if you like we can level the playing field by agreeing to avoid fallacy altogether, and to remind one another when it occurs.

Or, on my vegetarian menu, I have an alternative plan: no rant, blame or bluster, just an insightful conversation into some of the ideas you have advanced which have eluded me by virtue of my unfamiliarity with your use of terms.

Or you can get the free cup of water at the drive-through and resume whatever you were doing...

AI

Its the fallacy of equivocation!
What do I win?

See, I hadn't even considered that. I notice a lot of people here do that, along with exaggerating and just talking though their tailfeathers.

You have managed to keep a lively dialogue going - good work.

Then we don't exist; or we are completely irrelevant in every respect, including as far as we ourselves and the people we interact with are concerned.

I would interpret aaqucnaona's remarks to mean yes, we are irrelevant to the cosmos, but no, we not are irrelevant to the world of another human being. This would be compatible with secular humanism, which is common among atheists, whether they profess it or not.

Jan,
(High-five to Aaqucnaona :cheers: ).AI

Thanks. You see how the discussion went from semantics to vegetarianism to belief in god to discription of truth. It was fine till the last part but then she gave this definition of truth:
Truth IS.
Which is as helpful as saying I live on earth when someone asks for your address. And she hasn't even replied or clarified it yet. Well I think she may be busy with the holiday season or something,
So Happy Holidays, AI and Jan and anyone else who reads this!

Jan,


[QUOTE]Aaqucnaona gave a value statement about religion: unnecessary but acceptable in moderation. From this we conclude that a reference was made to the harm of religious extremism. That’s fair and not only reasonable but generally accepted as fact. (High-five to Aaqucnaona :cheers: ).

He said...



But boasting aside, I dont think of religion to be bad anymore. I think of it as unnecessary but acceptable in moderate amounts.



Your reply, that Stalin must have felt the same way is fallacious, because Stalin was the extremist.

But he must have felt the same way none the less, which lead to his extremism.



Stalin massacred millions of human beings in the most painful and vicious manner conceivable.


Because of how he felt. I'm quite sure he felt the same way at some point of his evolution. ;)



Furthermore, casting Stalin in the light of atheism, commits the specific fallacy I had in mind, cherry-picking. You are cherry-picking in avoidance of his causal characteristics (despotism, megalomania, psychopathy), and you are cherry-picking him from among millions of typical moderate people.


Nice try, but of course you're hopelessly wrong.
I'm show Aaqu.. the extreme of his thinking, in a bid to get him to think about his statements rather than jump in blindfolded. IOW, there's hope for him yet.



In other words, why not say Carl Sagan must have felt the same way?


Probably because Sagan's hatred was not as obvious as Starlins.



Because you wanted to complete a link between atheism and atrocity, or, in other words, to impugn atheism for Stalin’s atrocity. This commits the fallacy of guilt by association. Fallacy compounded.


There is a link between atheism and atrocity, or are you in denial.
If one is an atheist, and develops a hatred for religion, God, etc, and seeks
to remove the world of such things and thought processes, then his atheism is the motivator.


jan.

aaqucnaona,



Thanks. You see how the discussion went from semantics to vegetarianism to belief in god to discription of truth. It was fine till the last part but then she gave this definition of truth:
Truth IS.
Which is as helpful as saying I live on earth when someone asks for your address. And she hasn't even replied or clarified it yet. Well I think she may be busy with the holiday season or something,
So Happy Holidays, AI and Jan and anyone else who reads this!


I'm quite disappointed at your attitude toward me as I am taking the time
to try and explain my thinking to you as clearly as possible.

I think I'll stop now as you seem to be taking the piss.


jan.

Originally posted by aaqucnaona


“Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
What I, or anyone thinks, or feels, has nothing to do with what actually IS.”



Agreed.



“Do you agree that there is an exact distance between the sun and the earth, regardless of whether we know it or not?”

Of course. But whats your point here? That's not something one can know by aligning one's consciousness - you require astronomy, maths, physics and the scientific method and even after all that trouble you can never get the real actual exact distance.

I have only read the last couple of pages of this thread, yet I think the point that Jan may be trying to make is that the universe and all it contains are the only verifiable facts. We can measure and define them as much as we choose, yet the perspective of the observer is ever distorted by the vantage point and no two observers will ever arrive at precisely the same determination when one gets down to the quantum degree of measurement.

Math is a human construct and so we can artificially assign a mandatory answer that all will arrive at if they come to it by the same path.

In the world and the universe, all objects are traveling a slightly different trajectory.

Have I messed up the dialogue beyond all salvage? :D

Merry Christmas everyone.

aaqucnaona,





I'm quite disappointed at your attitude toward me as I am taking the time
to try and explain my thinking to you as clearly as possible.

I think I'll stop now as you seem to be taking the piss.


jan.

Oh come on jan, I was joking. Which is why I said, for a "on offense" kinda bufffer:


Well I think she may be busy with the holiday season or something,
So Happy Holidays, AI and Jan and anyone else who reads this!

I amn't taking the piss and if I gave that impression, I honestly apologise.
Please, lets resume this conversation. :peace:

In the world and the universe, all objects are traveling a slightly different trajectory.

Have I messed up the dialogue beyond all salvage? :D

Merry Christmas everyone.

Same to you! I'm wondering if you put antlers on any of your more tolerant Equus sapiens (so named for their demonstrated skills). It could be symbolic of the antithesis of animal sacrifice (discussed above) to crown a pet with a suitable adornment, not of course as an act of idolatry or even in acknowledgment of hedonism, but as a sort of half-comical, half-profound recognition of our bond and interdependence with all the beasties on board this spaceship, especially the characters with idiosynchrosies and personality that have us wrapped around their little...uh...ungulate processes?

Just to spur such a thought is about as far as you can get from messing up the dialogue. In fact, I find an immediate antidote to the premise of the vicious cycle of religion. In particular, I like what you said at the top. It sounds almost poetic. This could be put to a melody, and (if I were head bull moose of the Klondike for a day) incorporated into a world song for secular humanism. I like the rhythm, it's not at all contrived:


in the world (da-da-DUM)
and the universe (d-d-DAH-da-da)
all objects (DAH-d-da)
are traveling (DAH-d-d-da)
in a slightly diff'rent (d-d-DAH-da-d-d)
trajectory (d-DAH-da-d)

Food for thought.
I like it.

jan,



But he [Stalin] must have felt the same way [about religion] none the less, which lead to his extremism...[and committed atrocities against humanity]
Because of how he felt. I'm quite sure he felt the same way at some point of his evolution. ;)


How does atheism lead to murder, particularly the wholesale slaughter of millions?



Nice try, but of course you're hopelessly wrong.
I'm show Aaqu.. the extreme of his thinking, in a bid to get him to think about his statements rather than jump in blindfolded. IOW, there's hope for him yet.

What is extreme about Aaqucnaona’s thinking? Blindfolds contradict the expressed eagerness to learn and debate. Hope, you mean, for adopting a theist creed?



Probably because Sagan's hatred was not as obvious as [Stalin's].

You mean Carl “billions and billions of stars” Sagan compares to Josef “millions and millions of corpses” Stalin? What hatred are you referring to? You don’t like Sagan? He was so affable.



There is a link between atheism and atrocity, or are you in denial.

The link you seem to be referring to is state atheism, and the slaughter that accompanied a wide program of totalitarianism, of which atheism and religious persecution were the subordinate, not dominant, elements. To say otherwise is to deny history.



If one is an atheist, and develops a hatred for religion, God, etc, and seeks
to remove the world of such things and thought processes, then his atheism is the motivator.

The specific example you address--state atheism and genocide in Russia-- begins not with a hatred of God, but of the power and influence of the (Catholic, later Orthodox) church over the working class, and the insinuation of this concept into Marxism in its theory of class struggle and the ideological war against capitalism. Marx, and the Russian tyrants who rode his coattails, were concerned with the effect of religion on society, not theology in a vacuum as you presume. Consider, in light of your assumptions, these remarks from Lenin:


Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism.

Here you see religion takes a back seat in the Soviet priority to crush capitalism.

Thank you Aqueous for taking the baton for now. Say a dozen posts and then I will join into the discussion. Till then, Jan and AI, battle away! :p

Ps. Jan, its not an extrimist position. My position is this [I have already sai this]:
Convince me! I am ready to believe but until someone is able to convince me I will not accept the claim, is that an extremist position?

Convince me! I am ready to believe but until someone is able to convince me I will not accept the claim, is that an extremist position?

Oh dear. You want to be brainwashed?

Oh dear. You want to be brainwashed?

Now then, wynn. Which side are you on exactly? You debate atheists but think my being open to theism is brainwashing?

Now then, wynn. Which side are you on exactly?

I rarely take sides, if ever.



You debate atheists but think my being open to theism is brainwashing?

You said:


Convince me! I am ready to believe but until someone is able to convince me I will not accept the claim, is that an extremist position?

It's the desire to become convinced by others that is the desire to be brainwashed.

Do you not think that sound, sane, valuable and viable personal conviction ought to come from personal experience and realization, and that the claims of other people should play only a minor role in the process of you becoming convinced?

Do you not think that sound, sane, valuable and viable personal conviction ought to come from personal experience and realization, and that the claims of other people should play only a minor role in the process of you becoming convinced?

No, once I have sceptically scrutinized all the claims made to me, any of those who make it past my logical filter for woo woo gets a temporary beilief status. I think you are way to sceptical, not even believing this we ought to once we have evidence for them. Personal experience and realisation doesn't get you anywhere. I say, get to know as many people you can and check their beliefs, if you find good ones, incorporate them and ignore all the bad ones. Its a much better way than the one you suggest.

Well, you're young.

Well, you're young.

Observably so.

Some others would seem to be jaded.

Others yet, of such fixed mind that concrete seems as marshmallow.

Just my observations over a number of on-line forums, not targeted to anyone in particular. :bugeye:

Just my observations over a number of on-line forums, not targeted to anyone in particular.

Riiight, Ms Pokerface.

:bugeye:

Why? Because you say she's Ms. Pokerface?

Well, you're young.

You mean I am not old enough to know what I should think?
Please explain/ backup your statement because I beg to differ.

You mean I am not old enough to know what I should think?
Please explain/ backup your statement because I beg to differ.

With age, you might begin to value personal experience and realization.

You are operating out of personal experience and realization now as well, but being younger, you have less of them than someone several decades your senior, for example.
The way you assess the claims other people make is strongly guided by your personal experience and realization anyway, however much or little thereof you currently have.

Some things change, there occur some internal shifts, as one gains more personal experience and realization.

Why? Because you say she's Ms. Pokerface?

GeoffP - rhetorics: F-.

The United States Federal Government, and the corporations it protects, along with the universities they both have vested interests in are both greater threats to real science. Science should remain unbiased and objective. As long as there are moneyed political interests in science, it will not be. Government and corporations are far more powerful than evangelical politics.

Most scientists have been so thoroughly indoctrinated, they are blind to their bias. That is how vicious and dangerous the government and corporations are to science. Who gives a shit about evangelicals. Their reach stops at the Pacific and the Atlantic. The Jesuits' and the Zionists' reach are global, and they don't give one wit about god, they hunger only for power. Their organizations are ostensibly atheist, caring only about the ruling of man's productive capacity here on Earth. If that means obfuscation about the laws of nature and the reality of the cosmos, well then, so be it.

Science should remain unbiased and objective.

:
:
The Jesuits' and the Zionists' reach are global, and they don't give one wit about god, they hunger only for power.


I see you are unbiased and objective. Congratulations.

Phobias galore, the stuff of religion.:mad: