Johnny Sitar
Well it appears we agree on most everything but because of a very personal life changing event I can tell you without one shred of doubt there is a God and an afterlife- some people will not except that but it is the only explanation for what I experienced. I am very comfortable in my "faith" even though you say it shouldn't be called that if it is knowledge. That again seems like its being way over thought instead of felt. Which seems to be a running theme
no man...to suggest that you are worthy of this insight from god and 99.999% of the rest of the world isn't doesn't work
when the faithful are backed into a corner they always pull out the "there is no explanation for what I experienced" junk
yes there is...it's called "your imagination"
forgive me if I already told this story, but this is part of my point; an old friend of mine from elementary school once told me to go up to his mom and ask her "when did god get there?". Her response: "He's always been there". I said "well, to get somewhere you have to arrive or be created at some point". "no honey, he's always been there". See the problem in that? There's no logical reasoning, just blind faith.
Now the vatican has started the search for extraterrestrial life. And they believe, that if there is ET out there, that he is also a product of Man's god. And they will be embraced as his children as well. How freaking arrogant can this religion get??
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Johnny Sitar
Well it appears we agree on most everything but because of a very personal life changing event I can tell you without one shred of doubt there is a God and an afterlife- some people will not except that but it is the only explanation for what I experienced. I am very comfortable in my "faith" even though you say it shouldn't be called that if it is knowledge. That again seems like its being way over thought instead of felt. Which seems to be a running theme
no man...to suggest that you are worthy of this insight from god and 99.999% of the rest of the world isn't doesn't work
when the faithful are backed into a corner they always pull out the "there is no explanation for what I experienced" junk
yes there is...it's called "your imagination"
forgive me if I already told this story, but this is part of my point; an old friend of mine from elementary school once told me to go up to his mom and ask her "when did god get there?". Her response: "He's always been there". I said "well, to get somewhere you have to arrive or be created at some point". "no honey, he's always been there". See the problem in that? There's no logical reasoning, just blind faith.
Now the vatican has started the search for extraterrestrial life. And they believe, that if there is ET out there, that he is also a product of Man's god. And they will be embraced as his children as well. How freaking arrogant can this religion get??
yeah it's insane
I remember talking to a buddy of mine several years ago and I mentioned that I had basically rejected religion...his response was "I think you just need to believe and not question it"
uh....what?
Then they always pull out the old "well if you do believe and it's true you are saved, if it isn't true than you aren't out anything....but if you don't believe and it's true, well then you'll have your flesh ripped from your bones for eternity".....yeah that makes a fuck of a lot of sense
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Johnny Sitar
Well it appears we agree on most everything but because of a very personal life changing event I can tell you without one shred of doubt there is a God and an afterlife- some people will not except that but it is the only explanation for what I experienced. I am very comfortable in my "faith" even though you say it shouldn't be called that if it is knowledge. That again seems like its being way over thought instead of felt. Which seems to be a running theme
according to Meyer's Briggs, I am too a feeler (that sounds sick, but that's what they call it). We just disagree on what it is we actually think about.
Without specifics, I will have to respectfully reject your claim of knowing there is a god without doubt. There will be doubt until we are worm food.
Johnny Sitar
Well it appears we agree on most everything but because of a very personal life changing event I can tell you without one shred of doubt there is a God and an afterlife- some people will not except that but it is the only explanation for what I experienced. I am very comfortable in my "faith" even though you say it shouldn't be called that if it is knowledge. That again seems like its being way over thought instead of felt. Which seems to be a running theme
according to Meyer's Briggs, I am too a feeler (that sounds sick, but that's what they call it). We just disagree on what it is we actually think about.
Without specifics, I will have to respectfully reject your claim of knowing there is a god without doubt. There will be doubt until we are worm food.
oh I'm going in a drawer no worms for me
me too. just an expression.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Then they always pull out the old "well if you do believe and it's true you are saved, if it isn't true than you aren't out anything....but if you don't believe and it's true, well then you'll have your flesh ripped from your bones for eternity".....yeah that makes a fuck of a lot of sense
such nonsense. i'm out plenty... all those acts of wanton hedonism i have to skip in order to get saved... no more banging hot drunk girls, no more drinking to excess during college football games... that's not a life worth living if you ask me!
my philosophy has been the opposite. if i don't believe and show up at the pearly gates and god wants me in hell for not worshiping him enough, that's a god i'm not interested in spending eternity with anyway. you all can have fun dealing with the ego and vanity of this petty god.
Then they always pull out the old "well if you do believe and it's true you are saved, if it isn't true than you aren't out anything....but if you don't believe and it's true, well then you'll have your flesh ripped from your bones for eternity".....yeah that makes a fuck of a lot of sense
such nonsense. i'm out plenty... all those acts of wanton hedonism i have to skip in order to get saved... no more banging hot drunk girls, no more drinking to excess during college football games... that's not a life worth living if you ask me!
my philosophy has been the opposite. if i don't believe and show up at the pearly gates and god wants me in hell for not worshiping him enough, that's a god i'm not interested in spending eternity with anyway. you all can have fun dealing with the ego and vanity of this petty god.
exactly my belief....If he turns me down then fuck him because I've been a lot more moral than the majority of christians I know
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
hes not gonna turn you away. how can he??? he doesnt exist. there is no heaven. there is no hell. there is this life were living. so live it well... in whatever way you think that means.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
exactly my belief....If he turns me down then fuck him because I've been a lot more moral than the majority of christians I know
I would like to think I am in the same boat as I will always try to do the right thing, and if by some chance their was a heaven/hell I think most christians would end up in hell any way as they can not even follow their on religous doctrine correctly anyway.
Rod Laver Arena - Feb 18, 2003
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
personally, i think it is pathetic that you call her beliefs pathetic. Why are your beliefs in non-theism any more rationale than a person's theist beliefs?
You're right that nobody knows what happens. Of course. But is seems that you claim to know what happens (nothing). Seems awfully hypocritical to me is all.
im gonna assume you meant to say rational here... and ask you if you know what rational actually means.
theism isnt based on logic or reason... its based on faith. therefore a non theist has come about their 'beliefs' in a more rational way than a thiest who requires no proof in anything yet who seeks it in the most irrational manner and in the absence of any real substantiated evidence.
sheesh I knew I should have edited that. Yes I know what rational means. So sorry for the malapropism.
Science is the faith of the non-theist. Most of science from the 19th century is now extinct or has been at least changed. And the science that does remain intact breaks down at the "grand" level (level of the universe) and the atomic level. It only works in our little version of space and time we call "reality."
Have you ever heard of Bell's Theorem? It basically says that all scientific theories on the localized level are false, and it hasn't been disproven.
So the "faith of science" has inherent flaws and changes over time - just like religion. It is almost as irrational to believe that science can explain everything as it is to believe that religion and god(s) can explain everything.
I think the only honest answer is to say "I don't know" and to condemn or try to prove false anyone else's beliefs is futile.
Post edited by he still stands on
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
really- never "met" another person planning on going in a drawer
I was assuming you meant getting cremated.
well I will probably get cremated but yes the drawers are for those who don't usually. We have ours cause my husbands Dad passed suddenly and well we decided to be next to Cap and aleady bought ours. Theres no place else I'd rather be. He was a most wonderful man. Really miss him.
then you are no more a christian than some college kid with a few che guevera posters was part of the revolution. you're just using the bible as a glorified self help book, like AA's big book or the 7 habits of highly effective people.
you finding peace doesnt bother me. i find it kinda pathetic that you claim to know your future, becos nobody knows what happens when we die. you believe or have faith that the book you picked to be your self help guide got it right, that's the extent of your knowledge. but this is what bothers me... the dumbing down of humanity and our unwillingness to let go of outdated superstitions becos we're too weak and scared to face death on real terms. we're still like children aafraid of the boogie man. in the end, it's not that big a deal though, so long as you keep your quaint myths to yourself.
personally, i think it is pathetic that you call her beliefs pathetic. Why are your beliefs in non-theism any more rationale than a person's theist beliefs?
You're right that nobody knows what happens. Of course. But is seems that you claim to know what happens (nothing). Seems awfully hypocritical to me is all.
i don't recall claiming to know what happens when we die. i have no clue. i was referring to the fact that we can't handle the thought of not being around our loved ones, so we invent stories where we all get together for one big happy reunion somehow. perhaps pathetic was too strong a word, but the fact is that the bible and all other sacred texts/self help books are nothing more than collections of cultural mythology. we laugh at what native americans believed, we laugh at what the romans believed, then we tell people we know OUR myths are fact! it's intellectually laughable to convince yourself that somehow the current vogue mythology is any different or more substantive than the hundreds that have gone before.
Okay I apologize for assuming you were proposing you knew what happens. I was just going off of your posts that are anti-religion and anti-faith to assume that meant you were an atheist. So you're agnostic then?
quoting myself:
Again, most of science from the 19th century is now extinct or has been at least changed. And the science that does remain intact breaks down at the "grand" level (level of the universe) and the atomic level. It only works in our little version of space and time we call "reality." Bell's Theorem says that all scientific theories on the localized level are false, and it hasn't been disproven. So the "faith of science" has inherent flaws and changes over time - just like religion.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
So the "faith of science" has inherent flaws and changes over time - just like religion.
your argument fails right here, becos this is exactly what religion not does. science is not faith. faith is what allows religion to say "everything we thought was true then, we have faith is true now, and we will not consider any new developments." thus, gay marriage bans and the like. science is not faith, becos when new information replaces the old, the old is discarded. there is no "faith" that what is known now is conclusive, only that it is the best explanation we have so far.
So the "faith of science" has inherent flaws and changes over time - just like religion.
your argument fails right here, becos this is exactly what religion not does. science is not faith. faith is what allows religion to say "everything we thought was true then, we have faith is true now, and we will not consider any new developments." thus, gay marriage bans and the like. science is not faith, becos when new information replaces the old, the old is discarded. there is no "faith" that what is known now is conclusive, only that it is the best explanation we have so far.
The way you describe religion to me seems like a pretty fundamentalist depiction - the true bible thumpers who take the entire bible literally. I don't know of any religious people who would think that no "new developments" would be considered, whatever that means. I'm sure they're out there, but I think the people you are describing are a small minority.
Religion certainly does disgust me sometimes in that the morality that people preach allows disgusting behavior and sometimes even glorifies it (hate of "taboo" groups, wars, executions, etc). But most of the religious people I know have moved beyond this reptilian way of thinking.
All I'm saying (and i'm not talking about you here) is that people who claim that science can explain everything, the non-existence of god(s),that the human mind can understand ANYTHING, and that people who believe in a "boogie man under the bed" are stupid - are practicing their own sort of dogma. Maybe its not "faith" but they believe it (I don't really know what the difference is, between belief and faith).
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
So the "faith of science" has inherent flaws and changes over time - just like religion.
your argument fails right here, becos this is exactly what religion not does. science is not faith. faith is what allows religion to say "everything we thought was true then, we have faith is true now, and we will not consider any new developments." thus, gay marriage bans and the like. science is not faith, becos when new information replaces the old, the old is discarded. there is no "faith" that what is known now is conclusive, only that it is the best explanation we have so far.
The way you describe religion to me seems like a pretty fundamentalist depiction - the true bible thumpers who take the entire bible literally. I don't know of any religious people who would think that no "new developments" would be considered, whatever that means. I'm sure they're out there, but I think the people you are describing are a small minority.
Religion certainly does disgust me sometimes in that the morality that people preach allows disgusting behavior and sometimes even glorifies it (hate of "taboo" groups, wars, executions, etc). But most of the religious people I know have moved beyond this reptilian way of thinking.
All I'm saying (and i'm not talking about you here) is that people who claim that science can explain everything, the non-existence of god(s),that the human mind can understand ANYTHING, and that people who believe in a "boogie man under the bed" are stupid - are practicing their own sort of dogma. Maybe its not "faith" but they believe it (I don't really know what the difference is, between belief and faith).
the inherent problem with religion is exactly what you describe, you can take what you want from it and make it your own fact. you can't do that with science. when any given theorem is proven/disproven, you can't go back and say "well this is still what I believe". It's fact.
Of course science is flawed in the way that we don't know everything. We never will. Scientists admit that. It's obvious. Many religious people and groups, including some folks on here however, claim to "know" things that are far from proven based solely on their own personal experiences, which is ridiculously flawed. I don't know any scientist that claims to know everything. I do know the equivalent in the religious community (priests) that do, however.
Religion has its place. It is what it is for different people, and if it helps someone get through the day, then that's fabulous. But when people start preaching it as fact in direct contravention to scientific fact, that's when it crosses the line.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The way you describe religion to me seems like a pretty fundamentalist depiction - the true bible thumpers who take the entire bible literally. I don't know of any religious people who would think that no "new developments" would be considered, whatever that means. I'm sure they're out there, but I think the people you are describing are a small minority.
you live in a strange place if the small minority of christians there are the ones believe that jesus was the son of god (in a diff way from the rest of us), mary was a virgin, jesus performed miracles, and he died and came back. you don't have to be a fundamentalist bible thumper to believe those fairy tales that fit well within the sort of faith i described. 99% of christians believe those things, aside from whatever pseudo-neo-christian cult you and pandora subscribe to where jesus was just another hippy that got famous. science does not have texts like that... that have had their stories unchanged and unevaluated for thousands of years. even the backbone of evolutionary theory is maybe 200 years old and has already been corrected and revised in further research. darwin didn't nail evolution in one book and nobody out there is shutting down science labs to say "nope, darwin spoke and this is how the story goes, period." they are all working in their labs to improve what came before, not halt any further discovery in the name of it being sacred or divinely inspired.
The way you describe religion to me seems like a pretty fundamentalist depiction - the true bible thumpers who take the entire bible literally. I don't know of any religious people who would think that no "new developments" would be considered, whatever that means. I'm sure they're out there, but I think the people you are describing are a small minority.
you live in a strange place if the small minority of christians there are the ones believe that jesus was the son of god (in a diff way from the rest of us), mary was a virgin, jesus performed miracles, and he died and came back. you don't have to be a fundamentalist bible thumper to believe those fairy tales that fit well within the sort of faith i described. 99% of christians believe those things, aside from whatever pseudo-neo-christian cult you and pandora subscribe to where jesus was just another hippy that got famous. science does not have texts like that... that have had their stories unchanged and unevaluated for thousands of years. even the backbone of evolutionary theory is maybe 200 years old and has already been corrected and revised in further research. darwin didn't nail evolution in one book and nobody out there is shutting down science labs to say "nope, darwin spoke and this is how the story goes, period." they are all working in their labs to improve what came before, not halt any further discovery in the name of it being sacred or divinely inspired.
funny you should mention cult in the same sentence as my name cause my husband has always said- "Pandora, you should be a cult leader!" maybe you have premonitions like I do too! He also thinks I should write a book but it wouldn't be on religion cause I know nothing of that. I think I could write a fantasy book though with the subject being on fulfilling ones needs in life. We all have needs- for some its nothing more than the basic neanderthal- ho hum- but then there are those with spiritual needs. Could be a lovely book with pretty pictures, high hopes and perhaps even a moral. By God I think I have it! Hey someone's b-day is coming
you live in a strange place if the small minority of christians there are the ones believe that jesus was the son of god (in a diff way from the rest of us), mary was a virgin, jesus performed miracles, and he died and came back. you don't have to be a fundamentalist bible thumper to believe those fairy tales that fit well within the sort of faith i described. 99% of christians believe those things, aside from whatever pseudo-neo-christian cult you and pandora subscribe to where jesus was just another hippy that got famous. science does not have texts like that... that have had their stories unchanged and unevaluated for thousands of years. even the backbone of evolutionary theory is maybe 200 years old and has already been corrected and revised in further research. darwin didn't nail evolution in one book and nobody out there is shutting down science labs to say "nope, darwin spoke and this is how the story goes, period." they are all working in their labs to improve what came before, not halt any further discovery in the name of it being sacred or divinely inspired.
funny you should mention cult in the same sentence as my name cause my husband has always said- "Pandora, you should be a cult leader!" maybe you have premonitions like I do too! He also thinks I should write a book but it wouldn't be on religion cause I know nothing of that. I think I could write a fantasy book though with the subject being on fulfilling ones needs in life. We all have needs- for some its nothing more than the basic neanderthal- ho hum- but then there are those with spiritual needs. Could be a lovely book with pretty pictures, high hopes and perhaps even a moral. By God I think I have it! Hey someone's b-day is coming
if i could pull it off, i'd start a cult too. good money maker!
99% of christians believe those things, aside from whatever pseudo-neo-christian cult you and pandora subscribe to where jesus was just another hippy that got famous.
what's with the hate man? I keep saying I believe in nothing... I just think that believing in non-theism is dogmatic and thoughtless, almost as much as belief in theism, and your response ^^^ is a good example of how beliefs cause people to act out aggressively and recklessly... whether it is a belief in god or science or whatever. I don't "subscribe" to any sort of "pseudo-neo-christian cult" or any other belief system because beliefs are the birth of ignorance. Once you believe in something, in anything, all other points of view are ignored.
"I believe in everything, nothing is sacred.... I believe in nothing, everything is sacred"
science does not have texts like that... that have had their stories unchanged and unevaluated for thousands of years. even the backbone of evolutionary theory is maybe 200 years old and has already been corrected and revised in further research. darwin didn't nail evolution in one book and nobody out there is shutting down science labs to say "nope, darwin spoke and this is how the story goes, period." they are all working in their labs to improve what came before, not halt any further discovery in the name of it being sacred or divinely inspired.
I understand the differences between religion and science and I'm not saying that science is "like relgion" in that includes incredulous tales of super-human powers. I don't really know what the point is that you're trying to make.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
99% of christians believe those things, aside from whatever pseudo-neo-christian cult you and pandora subscribe to where jesus was just another hippy that got famous.
what's with the hate man? I keep saying I believe in nothing... I just think that believing in non-theism is dogmatic and thoughtless, almost as much as belief in theism, and your response ^^^ is a good example of how beliefs cause people to act out aggressively and recklessly... whether it is a belief in god or science or whatever. I don't "subscribe" to any sort of "pseudo-neo-christian cult" or any other belief system because beliefs are the birth of ignorance. Once you believe in something, in anything, all other points of view are ignored.
"I believe in everything, nothing is sacred.... I believe in nothing, everything is sacred"
science does not have texts like that... that have had their stories unchanged and unevaluated for thousands of years. even the backbone of evolutionary theory is maybe 200 years old and has already been corrected and revised in further research. darwin didn't nail evolution in one book and nobody out there is shutting down science labs to say "nope, darwin spoke and this is how the story goes, period." they are all working in their labs to improve what came before, not halt any further discovery in the name of it being sacred or divinely inspired.
I understand the differences between religion and science and I'm not saying that science is "like relgion" in that includes incredulous tales of super-human powers. I don't really know what the point is that you're trying to make.
the point i made is that it is absurd to claim that science is faith-based. and i stand by what i said. you claimed my view of christianity only applies to a small minority and i pointed out that 99% of christians have these faith-based beliefs, it's not just fundie bible thumpers. i say the view YOU have of christians is flawed, and that people like pandora (sorry for confusing you as one of them) are a very tiny minority.
your definition of faith is ridiculous... you're basically expanding it to such an absurdly inclusive and useless concept that you would say the fact that i think there's still water in my mug because i just filled it up and nobody drank out of it is an act of supreme faith, which is just plain absurd unless you're on acid. i cant sit on a toilet without having "faith" that it's coming out the normal end instead of mouth this time. that's the new age worthless psycho-babble i was talking about earlier.
your black and white box doesn't apply here, one can believe certain notions without closing the door to all other ideas. i believe in gravity becos it works and the evidence is compelling, not because it was written down in a 3000 year old book by a deity. but i'm willing to hear you out if you have something better to offer. but you have to give me evidence of it, not some abstract gibberish about how no one can know anything or believe anything without being closed-minded. i don't know what point YOU'RE trying to make? that we should all just sit here twiddling our thumbs pondering if this is an illusion? i mean, why get up to eat if we're not sure we're really eating food instead of poison!
Well I keep getting misquoted - my 'definition of faith?', 'black and white box', I must be on acid, etc - so I'll end with reiterating my only point:
Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.
This is my argument against theism AND non-theism, not your personal beliefs, Soulsinging.
Alan Watts may have said it best of all: "The universe is a giant Rorschach ink-blot." Science finds one meaning in it in the 18th Century, another in the 19th, a third in the 20th; each artist finds unique meanings on other levels of abstraction; and each man and woman finds different meanings at different hours of the day, depending on the internal and external environments. We can all agree on concrete things like gravity and the world is round (although I can't prove either with 100% certainty... only 99.9999% certainty) but I thought we were discussing more abstract concepts here like the existence of god(s).
"It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X." -
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING. -- John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Well I keep getting misquoted - my 'definition of faith?', 'black and white box', I must be on acid, etc - so I'll end with reiterating my only point:
Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.
This is my argument against theism AND non-theism, not your personal beliefs, Soulsinging..
but you also used this argument against science in an attempt to argue that scientific knowledge is no different from religious faith, which is absurd because the very definition of scientific thought and investigation is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion you just espoused.
Alan Watts may have said it best of all: "The universe is a giant Rorschach ink-blot." Science finds one meaning in it in the 18th Century, another in the 19th, a third in the 20th; each artist finds unique meanings on other levels of abstraction; and each man and woman finds different meanings at different hours of the day, depending on the internal and external environments. We can all agree on concrete things like gravity and the world is round (although I can't prove either with 100% certainty... only 99.9999% certainty) but I thought we were discussing more abstract concepts here like the existence of god(s).
"It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.".
again, the opposite of what you've been saying thus far. you try to apply your lack of belief to even concrete concepts. and my point from the beginning is that science does revise itself regularly, religion does not and has not. the core of christian faith is unchanged in 2000 years. yet you continue to use the logic you rail against here... that those who dispute the core christian principles, must be dogmatic atheists. i don't have to run around throwing my hands in the air saying "i dont know anything" to have an open mind. i accept that science has some pretty strong support in a concrete sense, and that all the abstract god shit is probably irrelevant. you fail to realize that this is what most atheists subscribe to... not any certainty that atheism is the only true way, just great certainty that christianity and other religious myths are bullshit and irrelevant and that science is the best tool we've got to understand the world around us until someone offers something better. you haven't done so. so why would we abandon the best thing we've got without a convincing reason. that is why science is importantly different from faith. we only adopt views based on convincing evidence, rather than adopting views becos of faith and ignoring or dismissing any contradictory evidence.
but you also used this argument against science in an attempt to argue that scientific knowledge is no different from religious faith, which is absurd because the very definition of scientific thought and investigation is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion you just espoused.
I don't think it is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion. What you are talking about is called the demarcation problem... and if you think there has been a clear agreement in the scientific community about where to draw the boundaries between standard science, revolutionary science, pseudo-science, and religion, then you are mistaken. I'd suggest reading about it and the philosophy of science.
There are weird things happening in science that are fascinating and just reading about quantum physics will make you believe in things like magic and appreciate the unknown. The measurment problem is a good example. And we've already agreed that most of the science known 100 years ago has been proven false and there is no reason to suspect this won't be the case again 100 years from now.
It is not tantamount to faith in god or religion or spirituality or metaphysics or whatever... but science is not some immutable force that answers all our questions about the universe. In fact, atomic theory and quantum physics raise more questions about the unknown.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
but you also used this argument against science in an attempt to argue that scientific knowledge is no different from religious faith, which is absurd because the very definition of scientific thought and investigation is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion you just espoused.
I don't think it is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion. What you are talking about is called the demarcation problem... and if you think there has been a clear agreement in the scientific community about where to draw the boundaries between standard science, revolutionary science, pseudo-science, and religion, then you are mistaken. I'd suggest reading about it and the philosophy of science.
There are weird things happening in science that are fascinating and just reading about quantum physics will make you believe in things like magic and appreciate the unknown. The measurment problem is a good example. And we've already agreed that most of the science known 100 years ago has been proven false and there is no reason to suspect this won't be the case again 100 years from now.
It is not tantamount to faith in god or religion or spirituality or metaphysics or whatever... but science is not some immutable force that answers all our questions about the universe. .
i never claimed it was. i just claimed it was remarkably different from religion and has nothing to do whatsoever with the concept of faith. i also dont think most fo science has been proven false... the core principles of evolution, gravity, solar systems, etc are still largely intact. there are many new finds, and many questions that may turn these concepts on their head. but you act like we should ground every airplane in the world becos for all we know the theories of gravity and aerodynamics are completely wrong. that's ridiculous. perhaps we don't completely understand them, but they work and our ability to rely on those principles to fly thousands of planes per day is a helluva lot more sound than claiming a man rose from the dead. we have proof we're right every time an airplane lands safely. religion can only point to the bible or the koran for their contentions that a resurrection or whatever occurred. science is not perfect, but it is more sound than religion.
"Bell's theorem, derived in his seminal 1964 paper titled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox has been called "the most profound in science". The title of the article refers to the famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen purporting to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. In his paper, Bell started from essentially the same assumptions as did EPR, viz. i) reality (microscopic objects have real properties determining the outcomes of quantum mechanical measurements) and ii) locality (reality is not influenced by measurements simultaneously performed at a large distance). Bell was able to derive from these assumptions an important result, viz. Bell's inequality, violation of which by quantum mechanics implying that at least one of the assumptions must be abandoned if experiment would turn out to satisfy quantum mechanics." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
so, either reality doesn't exist or locality (measurement doesn't effect reality, i.e. what we see, taste, smell, feel) doesn't exist. Either is just as incredible as the other, if you think about it.
Just something to think about is all...
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
"Bell's theorem, derived in his seminal 1964 paper titled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox has been called "the most profound in science". The title of the article refers to the famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen purporting to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. In his paper, Bell started from essentially the same assumptions as did EPR, viz. i) reality (microscopic objects have real properties determining the outcomes of quantum mechanical measurements) and ii) locality (reality is not influenced by measurements simultaneously performed at a large distance). Bell was able to derive from these assumptions an important result, viz. Bell's inequality, violation of which by quantum mechanics implying that at least one of the assumptions must be abandoned if experiment would turn out to satisfy quantum mechanics." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
so, either reality doesn't exist or locality (measurement doesn't effect reality, i.e. what we see, taste, smell, feel) doesn't exist. Either is just as incredible as the other, if you think about it.
Just something to think about is all...
yes, if you're on acid for me, in my day to day life, it doesn't mean a damn thing. i'm going to try that argument in court though after i murder a family. "your honor, according to bell's theorem, they probably never even really existed anyway, so i couldn't have killed them!"
this is no more relevant to my real life than jesus dying on the cross. they're both just mental masturbation.
and that link says the implications for this are that... quantum mechanics is incomplete. so what? so is evolutionary theory. so is the big bang. so are many others. what's the science response? let's write new papers and design new experiments to figure out what's going on. meanwhile, in religion, christians realize jesus never really talked about the implications of nuclear weapons, stem cell research, abortion, or even homosexuality. do they put their heads together to come up with a few relevant chapters to add to the bible touching on these subjects? no, they go back to an even older text that their text supposedly supplanted and draw out random provisions out of context and the attempt to fit modern facts into that box.
Comments
forgive me if I already told this story, but this is part of my point; an old friend of mine from elementary school once told me to go up to his mom and ask her "when did god get there?". Her response: "He's always been there". I said "well, to get somewhere you have to arrive or be created at some point". "no honey, he's always been there". See the problem in that? There's no logical reasoning, just blind faith.
Now the vatican has started the search for extraterrestrial life. And they believe, that if there is ET out there, that he is also a product of Man's god. And they will be embraced as his children as well. How freaking arrogant can this religion get??
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
yeah it's insane
I remember talking to a buddy of mine several years ago and I mentioned that I had basically rejected religion...his response was "I think you just need to believe and not question it"
uh....what?
Then they always pull out the old "well if you do believe and it's true you are saved, if it isn't true than you aren't out anything....but if you don't believe and it's true, well then you'll have your flesh ripped from your bones for eternity".....yeah that makes a fuck of a lot of sense
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
me too. just an expression.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
such nonsense. i'm out plenty... all those acts of wanton hedonism i have to skip in order to get saved... no more banging hot drunk girls, no more drinking to excess during college football games... that's not a life worth living if you ask me!
my philosophy has been the opposite. if i don't believe and show up at the pearly gates and god wants me in hell for not worshiping him enough, that's a god i'm not interested in spending eternity with anyway. you all can have fun dealing with the ego and vanity of this petty god.
exactly my belief....If he turns me down then fuck him because I've been a lot more moral than the majority of christians I know
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I would like to think I am in the same boat as I will always try to do the right thing, and if by some chance their was a heaven/hell I think most christians would end up in hell any way as they can not even follow their on religous doctrine correctly anyway.
Rod Laver Arena - Nov 13, 2006
Adelaide Oval - Nov 17, 2009
Etihad Stadium - Nov 20, 2009
BDO Melbourne - Jan 24, 2014
New York - May 02 - 2016
Powered by Pearl Jam
I was assuming you meant getting cremated.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
sheesh I knew I should have edited that. Yes I know what rational means. So sorry for the malapropism.
Science is the faith of the non-theist. Most of science from the 19th century is now extinct or has been at least changed. And the science that does remain intact breaks down at the "grand" level (level of the universe) and the atomic level. It only works in our little version of space and time we call "reality."
Have you ever heard of Bell's Theorem? It basically says that all scientific theories on the localized level are false, and it hasn't been disproven.
So the "faith of science" has inherent flaws and changes over time - just like religion. It is almost as irrational to believe that science can explain everything as it is to believe that religion and god(s) can explain everything.
I think the only honest answer is to say "I don't know" and to condemn or try to prove false anyone else's beliefs is futile.
Okay I apologize for assuming you were proposing you knew what happens. I was just going off of your posts that are anti-religion and anti-faith to assume that meant you were an atheist. So you're agnostic then?
quoting myself:
your argument fails right here, becos this is exactly what religion not does. science is not faith. faith is what allows religion to say "everything we thought was true then, we have faith is true now, and we will not consider any new developments." thus, gay marriage bans and the like. science is not faith, becos when new information replaces the old, the old is discarded. there is no "faith" that what is known now is conclusive, only that it is the best explanation we have so far.
The way you describe religion to me seems like a pretty fundamentalist depiction - the true bible thumpers who take the entire bible literally. I don't know of any religious people who would think that no "new developments" would be considered, whatever that means. I'm sure they're out there, but I think the people you are describing are a small minority.
Religion certainly does disgust me sometimes in that the morality that people preach allows disgusting behavior and sometimes even glorifies it (hate of "taboo" groups, wars, executions, etc). But most of the religious people I know have moved beyond this reptilian way of thinking.
All I'm saying (and i'm not talking about you here) is that people who claim that science can explain everything, the non-existence of god(s),that the human mind can understand ANYTHING, and that people who believe in a "boogie man under the bed" are stupid - are practicing their own sort of dogma. Maybe its not "faith" but they believe it (I don't really know what the difference is, between belief and faith).
the inherent problem with religion is exactly what you describe, you can take what you want from it and make it your own fact. you can't do that with science. when any given theorem is proven/disproven, you can't go back and say "well this is still what I believe". It's fact.
Of course science is flawed in the way that we don't know everything. We never will. Scientists admit that. It's obvious. Many religious people and groups, including some folks on here however, claim to "know" things that are far from proven based solely on their own personal experiences, which is ridiculously flawed. I don't know any scientist that claims to know everything. I do know the equivalent in the religious community (priests) that do, however.
Religion has its place. It is what it is for different people, and if it helps someone get through the day, then that's fabulous. But when people start preaching it as fact in direct contravention to scientific fact, that's when it crosses the line.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
you live in a strange place if the small minority of christians there are the ones believe that jesus was the son of god (in a diff way from the rest of us), mary was a virgin, jesus performed miracles, and he died and came back. you don't have to be a fundamentalist bible thumper to believe those fairy tales that fit well within the sort of faith i described. 99% of christians believe those things, aside from whatever pseudo-neo-christian cult you and pandora subscribe to where jesus was just another hippy that got famous. science does not have texts like that... that have had their stories unchanged and unevaluated for thousands of years. even the backbone of evolutionary theory is maybe 200 years old and has already been corrected and revised in further research. darwin didn't nail evolution in one book and nobody out there is shutting down science labs to say "nope, darwin spoke and this is how the story goes, period." they are all working in their labs to improve what came before, not halt any further discovery in the name of it being sacred or divinely inspired.
what's the basic neanderthal ho hum?
what's with the hate man? I keep saying I believe in nothing... I just think that believing in non-theism is dogmatic and thoughtless, almost as much as belief in theism, and your response ^^^ is a good example of how beliefs cause people to act out aggressively and recklessly... whether it is a belief in god or science or whatever. I don't "subscribe" to any sort of "pseudo-neo-christian cult" or any other belief system because beliefs are the birth of ignorance. Once you believe in something, in anything, all other points of view are ignored.
"I believe in everything, nothing is sacred.... I believe in nothing, everything is sacred"
I understand the differences between religion and science and I'm not saying that science is "like relgion" in that includes incredulous tales of super-human powers. I don't really know what the point is that you're trying to make.
the point i made is that it is absurd to claim that science is faith-based. and i stand by what i said. you claimed my view of christianity only applies to a small minority and i pointed out that 99% of christians have these faith-based beliefs, it's not just fundie bible thumpers. i say the view YOU have of christians is flawed, and that people like pandora (sorry for confusing you as one of them) are a very tiny minority.
your definition of faith is ridiculous... you're basically expanding it to such an absurdly inclusive and useless concept that you would say the fact that i think there's still water in my mug because i just filled it up and nobody drank out of it is an act of supreme faith, which is just plain absurd unless you're on acid. i cant sit on a toilet without having "faith" that it's coming out the normal end instead of mouth this time. that's the new age worthless psycho-babble i was talking about earlier.
your black and white box doesn't apply here, one can believe certain notions without closing the door to all other ideas. i believe in gravity becos it works and the evidence is compelling, not because it was written down in a 3000 year old book by a deity. but i'm willing to hear you out if you have something better to offer. but you have to give me evidence of it, not some abstract gibberish about how no one can know anything or believe anything without being closed-minded. i don't know what point YOU'RE trying to make? that we should all just sit here twiddling our thumbs pondering if this is an illusion? i mean, why get up to eat if we're not sure we're really eating food instead of poison!
Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.
This is my argument against theism AND non-theism, not your personal beliefs, Soulsinging.
Alan Watts may have said it best of all: "The universe is a giant Rorschach ink-blot." Science finds one meaning in it in the 18th Century, another in the 19th, a third in the 20th; each artist finds unique meanings on other levels of abstraction; and each man and woman finds different meanings at different hours of the day, depending on the internal and external environments. We can all agree on concrete things like gravity and the world is round (although I can't prove either with 100% certainty... only 99.9999% certainty) but I thought we were discussing more abstract concepts here like the existence of god(s).
"It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X." -
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING. -- John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine.
but you also used this argument against science in an attempt to argue that scientific knowledge is no different from religious faith, which is absurd because the very definition of scientific thought and investigation is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion you just espoused.
again, the opposite of what you've been saying thus far. you try to apply your lack of belief to even concrete concepts. and my point from the beginning is that science does revise itself regularly, religion does not and has not. the core of christian faith is unchanged in 2000 years. yet you continue to use the logic you rail against here... that those who dispute the core christian principles, must be dogmatic atheists. i don't have to run around throwing my hands in the air saying "i dont know anything" to have an open mind. i accept that science has some pretty strong support in a concrete sense, and that all the abstract god shit is probably irrelevant. you fail to realize that this is what most atheists subscribe to... not any certainty that atheism is the only true way, just great certainty that christianity and other religious myths are bullshit and irrelevant and that science is the best tool we've got to understand the world around us until someone offers something better. you haven't done so. so why would we abandon the best thing we've got without a convincing reason. that is why science is importantly different from faith. we only adopt views based on convincing evidence, rather than adopting views becos of faith and ignoring or dismissing any contradictory evidence.
I don't think it is the exact opposite of the grandiose delusion. What you are talking about is called the demarcation problem... and if you think there has been a clear agreement in the scientific community about where to draw the boundaries between standard science, revolutionary science, pseudo-science, and religion, then you are mistaken. I'd suggest reading about it and the philosophy of science.
There are weird things happening in science that are fascinating and just reading about quantum physics will make you believe in things like magic and appreciate the unknown. The measurment problem is a good example. And we've already agreed that most of the science known 100 years ago has been proven false and there is no reason to suspect this won't be the case again 100 years from now.
It is not tantamount to faith in god or religion or spirituality or metaphysics or whatever... but science is not some immutable force that answers all our questions about the universe. In fact, atomic theory and quantum physics raise more questions about the unknown.
i never claimed it was. i just claimed it was remarkably different from religion and has nothing to do whatsoever with the concept of faith. i also dont think most fo science has been proven false... the core principles of evolution, gravity, solar systems, etc are still largely intact. there are many new finds, and many questions that may turn these concepts on their head. but you act like we should ground every airplane in the world becos for all we know the theories of gravity and aerodynamics are completely wrong. that's ridiculous. perhaps we don't completely understand them, but they work and our ability to rely on those principles to fly thousands of planes per day is a helluva lot more sound than claiming a man rose from the dead. we have proof we're right every time an airplane lands safely. religion can only point to the bible or the koran for their contentions that a resurrection or whatever occurred. science is not perfect, but it is more sound than religion.
so, either reality doesn't exist or locality (measurement doesn't effect reality, i.e. what we see, taste, smell, feel) doesn't exist. Either is just as incredible as the other, if you think about it.
Just something to think about is all...
yes, if you're on acid
this is no more relevant to my real life than jesus dying on the cross. they're both just mental masturbation.
and that link says the implications for this are that... quantum mechanics is incomplete. so what? so is evolutionary theory. so is the big bang. so are many others. what's the science response? let's write new papers and design new experiments to figure out what's going on. meanwhile, in religion, christians realize jesus never really talked about the implications of nuclear weapons, stem cell research, abortion, or even homosexuality. do they put their heads together to come up with a few relevant chapters to add to the bible touching on these subjects? no, they go back to an even older text that their text supposedly supplanted and draw out random provisions out of context and the attempt to fit modern facts into that box.
...now where did I put that bag of Doritos......?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
so, if can touch myself, I don't exist? I don't WANNA exist if that can't happen at least once a day.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014