and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
Not even knowing the difference between Amish and Arab leaves me little hope for humanity.
I'm pretty sure he knew the difference.
OK, but why Amish? It's hard to take this place seriously which I why I mostly don't.
Hold on, you're telling me that Arabs aren't Amish? WTF? Unbelievable. The beards really threw me off. I am in shock.
Years ago I had a full beard (Amish men shave around their mouths). My full-blooded grandma saw it and in her beautiful accent said, "Awwww, now why you got for that awwwful brush?" Cracked me up. Off it went!
But, sorry, I digress although I do think it points out that we often make assumptions about cultures we don't well understand.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
I disagree. I've read alot about different belief systems. one person cannot corner the market on what constitutes the concept of god. if that's your definition, fine, but that's not THE definition.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
I disagree. I've read alot about different belief systems. one person cannot corner the market on what constitutes the concept of god. if that's your definition, fine, but that's not THE definition.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
This isn't about one person cornering the market on what constitutes the concept of god. But what you are basically saying is that literally ANYTHING can be called god. Well, that necessarily makes the word or concept of god completely meaningless. The concept of god DOES have to be based on something. The origins and history of the concept do indeed lend themselves to some definition, however loose. I must say, it frustrates me a bit that some people try to literally remove all meaning from the word/concept. That is the same as just taking any word and telling someone that it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. Sorry, no. That is not how language or concepts work.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
I disagree. I've read alot about different belief systems. one person cannot corner the market on what constitutes the concept of god. if that's your definition, fine, but that's not THE definition.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
This isn't about one person cornering the market on what constitutes the concept of god. But what you are basically saying is that literally ANYTHING can be called god. Well, that necessarily makes the word or concept of god completely meaningless. The concept of god DOES have to be based on something. The origins and history of the concept do indeed lend themselves to some definition, however loose. I must say, it frustrates me a bit that some people try to literally remove all meaning from the word/concept. That is the same as just taking any word and telling someone that it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. Sorry, no. That is not how language or concepts work.
I'm not saying strip all meaning from it, nor did I say anything could be called god. it can mean higher power, or some type of energy, or the universe itself. whatever. I'm not saying you can call a spoon a god.
but a philosophical concept is fluid. a spoon is a spoon. a fork is a fork. those aren't concepts, those are facts. but a god can mean MANY things to many different people. many gods are passive, some are active. there has to be purpose or meaning? who says? I have never seen "god" as defined by those rules. it all seems a bit rigid to me.
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
I disagree. I've read alot about different belief systems. one person cannot corner the market on what constitutes the concept of god. if that's your definition, fine, but that's not THE definition.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
This isn't about one person cornering the market on what constitutes the concept of god. But what you are basically saying is that literally ANYTHING can be called god. Well, that necessarily makes the word or concept of god completely meaningless. The concept of god DOES have to be based on something. The origins and history of the concept do indeed lend themselves to some definition, however loose. I must say, it frustrates me a bit that some people try to literally remove all meaning from the word/concept. That is the same as just taking any word and telling someone that it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. Sorry, no. That is not how language or concepts work.
I'm not saying strip all meaning from it, nor did I say anything could be called god. it can mean higher power, or some type of energy, or the universe itself. whatever. I'm not saying you can call a spoon a god.
but a philosophical concept is fluid. a spoon is a spoon. a fork is a fork. those aren't concepts, those are facts. but a god can mean MANY things to many different people. many gods are passive, some are active. there has to be purpose or meaning? who says? I have never seen "god" as defined by those rules. it all seems a bit rigid to me.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I mean? I agree that god can mean MANY things... but it can't mean that it has no meaning, or no speck of some brand of intelligent design, or no hint of consciousness, or no spirit at all, or however you want to put it. And yes, it is defined by those rules. So I think that saying some people call scientific processes in of themselves "god" simply strips all meaning from the word god. "God", in whatever concept someone can come up with, has to have that quality of being some separate force outside of scientific processes, one way or another, however one's imagination can build it. Otherwise, you're simply not talking about god anymore. Erm, I would also say yeah, "god" has to at least have some kind of meaning. Without that there is just nothing. It would be a non-concept. I don't think me saying this is even close to rigid. It actually allows god to be basically anything other than nothing or something else altogether that already has a concrete explanation, lol. That seems to leave a LOT of room for what god could be. However, some people consider just about anything that hasn't yet been explained as possible evidence of God, which I also think is nuts.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
I disagree. I've read alot about different belief systems. one person cannot corner the market on what constitutes the concept of god. if that's your definition, fine, but that's not THE definition.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
This isn't about one person cornering the market on what constitutes the concept of god. But what you are basically saying is that literally ANYTHING can be called god. Well, that necessarily makes the word or concept of god completely meaningless. The concept of god DOES have to be based on something. The origins and history of the concept do indeed lend themselves to some definition, however loose. I must say, it frustrates me a bit that some people try to literally remove all meaning from the word/concept. That is the same as just taking any word and telling someone that it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. Sorry, no. That is not how language or concepts work.
I'm not saying strip all meaning from it, nor did I say anything could be called god. it can mean higher power, or some type of energy, or the universe itself. whatever. I'm not saying you can call a spoon a god.
but a philosophical concept is fluid. a spoon is a spoon. a fork is a fork. those aren't concepts, those are facts. but a god can mean MANY things to many different people. many gods are passive, some are active. there has to be purpose or meaning? who says? I have never seen "god" as defined by those rules. it all seems a bit rigid to me.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I mean? I agree that god can mean MANY things... but it can't mean that it has no meaning, or no speck of some brand of intelligent design, or no hint of consciousness, or no spirit at all, or however you want to put it. And yes, it is defined by those rules. So I think that saying some people call scientific processes in of themselves "god" simply strips all meaning from the word god. "God", in whatever concept someone can come up with, has to have that quality of being some separate force outside of scientific processes, one way or another, however one's imagination can build it. Otherwise, you're simply not talking about god anymore. Erm, I would also say yeah, "god" has to at least have some kind of meaning. Without that there is just nothing. It would be a non-concept. I don't think me saying this is even close to rigid. It actually allows god to be basically anything other than nothing or something else altogether that already has a concrete explanation, lol. That seems to leave a LOT of room for what god could be. However, some people consider just about anything that hasn't yet been explained as possible evidence of God, which I also think is nuts.
I guess I just don't think it's reasonable for humans to believe they are able to put paramaters on something we have zero idea about. I'm guessing if there is anything like that in existence, it is wildly different from what we think it is. there's no way, in my opinion, that anything with that kind of power/ability is anything that humans would be able to conceptualize.
I supposed maybe we should start another thread on this. just realized what thread this was in. in the meantime, take this, for instance. where is the "meaning" or "purpose" in this concept?
"The act of living generates a force field, an energy. That energy surrounds us; when we die, that energy joins with all the other energy. There is a giant mass of energy in the universe that has a good side and a bad side. We are part of the Force because we generate the power that makes the Force live. When we die, we become part of that Force, so we never really die; we continue as part of the Force."
I've enjoyed your discussion hugh? and allison, and I'm going to have to take the lady's side here. God is a fairly well defined concept that can't just be ascribed to anything.
If you think that God is the universe or nature or love, or that God is the fact that there is a vague "higher power", you are just an atheist who is afraid to admit what you are lol
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
Yup. I imagine the afterlife is like before I was born. I had no idea I existed and when I die it's gonna be the same thing, nothing.
and around and around we go: yes,it is faith-based. what these fuckers believe is true islam.
let me say this: take the worst, most violent and terrible portions of the bible, you know, the ones they don't preach about in church because they aren't to be taken literally, not now anyway, and create a faction, let's call it CHRISIS, and have them perpetrating these atrocities across the globe.
Do you not think that peaceful, loving, modern Christians would be telling you that what CHRISIS is, is not true Christianity? And you'd have Christian haters out there calling them Christian terrorists. It would be the same damn thing. Cue the "no christian would ever do that" response.
Bomb the fuck out of Christian nations for decades, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage and we'll see about that.
How about no religion at all?
How about people figure out there is no omnipresent deity floating around somewhere, there is no afterlife, and learn to appreciate this life and how valuable it is for everyone getting an opportunity at it?
I personally don't think God or an an omnipresent deity or any higher power and the afterlife have anything to do with each other. I'm an Atheist, but I have no reason to completely discount some kind of afterlife simply because of the scientific fact that energy doesn't die. Given how little we know about consciousness, I am at least somewhat open to the idea that consciousness and energy could somehow be tied together, and we just don't know the science of it (yet). I very seriously doubt that there is an afterlife, but that is a completely separate topic from the existence of God for me, and not one that has anything to do with faith.
We decompose and make good soil for trees and stuff. We do not enter another dimension.
I know we decompose, but I don't understand how anyone can confidently say that there is no afterlife, since the possibility, however remote, of there being a scientific explanation for it does technically exist, theoretically. I'm only willing to write off things that I think are literally ludicrous and based on absolutely nothing, like the existence of God. But I won't completely write off possibilities if there is even a tiny sliver of a scientific basis for them, and the fact that energy has been proven to be eternal is that sliver when it comes to an afterlife (until they prove that 100% of the energy in a living being goes to the process of decomposition, anyway, and that no energy whatsoever exits the body after death) .... But you're probably right. I would like proof of there being no afterlife though. I would happily accept such proof.
ok, so we're splitting hairs here, but what you are describing as an afterlife is what some would call there being a god (like all our spirits, one energy, one with the universe, etc, is what some define as god). being agnostic isn't defined as not believing or not knowing if there is a christian or buddhist god, but just knowing that we don't know what, if, comes after we die.
No, what I'm describing cannot be called being a god. At all. Because a god, in any manifestation, cannot be a completely unconscious force without any purpose or reason. Those are necessary descriptors for the idea. Anyone trying to say otherwise is just an Atheist who doesn't understand semantics. God is not another word for scientific/natural processes. God is also not just another way to say that you don't know something. The idea of god or a higher power of any kind MUST be something other than that. Without applying the idea of some sort of conscious force or some kind of organized purpose in some form, "god" is just a word without any meaning at all.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
I disagree. I've read alot about different belief systems. one person cannot corner the market on what constitutes the concept of god. if that's your definition, fine, but that's not THE definition.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
This isn't about one person cornering the market on what constitutes the concept of god. But what you are basically saying is that literally ANYTHING can be called god. Well, that necessarily makes the word or concept of god completely meaningless. The concept of god DOES have to be based on something. The origins and history of the concept do indeed lend themselves to some definition, however loose. I must say, it frustrates me a bit that some people try to literally remove all meaning from the word/concept. That is the same as just taking any word and telling someone that it can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. Sorry, no. That is not how language or concepts work.
I'm not saying strip all meaning from it, nor did I say anything could be called god. it can mean higher power, or some type of energy, or the universe itself. whatever. I'm not saying you can call a spoon a god.
but a philosophical concept is fluid. a spoon is a spoon. a fork is a fork. those aren't concepts, those are facts. but a god can mean MANY things to many different people. many gods are passive, some are active. there has to be purpose or meaning? who says? I have never seen "god" as defined by those rules. it all seems a bit rigid to me.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I mean? I agree that god can mean MANY things... but it can't mean that it has no meaning, or no speck of some brand of intelligent design, or no hint of consciousness, or no spirit at all, or however you want to put it. And yes, it is defined by those rules. So I think that saying some people call scientific processes in of themselves "god" simply strips all meaning from the word god. "God", in whatever concept someone can come up with, has to have that quality of being some separate force outside of scientific processes, one way or another, however one's imagination can build it. Otherwise, you're simply not talking about god anymore. Erm, I would also say yeah, "god" has to at least have some kind of meaning. Without that there is just nothing. It would be a non-concept. I don't think me saying this is even close to rigid. It actually allows god to be basically anything other than nothing or something else altogether that already has a concrete explanation, lol. That seems to leave a LOT of room for what god could be. However, some people consider just about anything that hasn't yet been explained as possible evidence of God, which I also think is nuts.
I guess I just don't think it's reasonable for humans to believe they are able to put paramaters on something we have zero idea about. I'm guessing if there is anything like that in existence, it is wildly different from what we think it is. there's no way, in my opinion, that anything with that kind of power/ability is anything that humans would be able to conceptualize.
Well where I run into trouble with that is the fact that we have zero idea about god the way we have zero idea about the invisible hairy cloud made out of paperclips that floats around the world tapping cats with its magic stick to make them meow when they're born. It's an absurdity either way.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Quick...change your facebook profile pics, that'll solve it.
so tell us, how do you solve it?
Stop importing them. This person waited for children to be released from inside according to witnesses. Children.
Stop being lovey dovey over people that wish to do us harm.
the bomber was born in the UK.
Born in the UK. Father left to go back to Libya...kid spend 3 weeks in Libya just before proving without a shadow of a doubt that he is a cowardly piece of shit. Let's not pretend this is a UK thing....in fact I don;t think its even a country thing,
let's not pretend it's an immigrant problem. most attacks since 9/11 have been perpetrated by citizens of the country they attacked.
They seem to become radicalized after visiting certain countries like Syria. Maybe ban citizens from visiting these countries?
I don't think it's quite that simple. I doubt you turn into a jihadist over your vacation. it was more likely something he had been taught for years by his relatives.
Very true. so newspapers reported that the manchester bomber became radicalized in syria after three weeks....does that mean he got his final training or his mission?
I couldn't imagine being ok with the fact that my kid was going to die and kill other kids...
Were the parents aware?!?
if this wasn't mentioned yet, the father was at least aware that his sons were into gangs, so he took them to libya, and took away their passports so they couldn't go back to the UK. the bomber convinced him to give him back his passport to go, I can't recall where, and he went to the UK instead.
sounds like the father was on the right track, but too trusting.
Britain has kicked the US out of the circle of trust for leaking info like a sieve to the press.
If you're referring to the headline about lap tops beings used as bombs - that leaked info has been public knowledge since early April. Gotta love the media playin us.
Oh please let it rain today.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
Quick...change your facebook profile pics, that'll solve it.
so tell us, how do you solve it?
Stop importing them. This person waited for children to be released from inside according to witnesses. Children.
Stop being lovey dovey over people that wish to do us harm.
the bomber was born in the UK.
Born in the UK. Father left to go back to Libya...kid spend 3 weeks in Libya just before proving without a shadow of a doubt that he is a cowardly piece of shit. Let's not pretend this is a UK thing....in fact I don;t think its even a country thing,
let's not pretend it's an immigrant problem. most attacks since 9/11 have been perpetrated by citizens of the country they attacked.
They seem to become radicalized after visiting certain countries like Syria. Maybe ban citizens from visiting these countries?
I don't think it's quite that simple. I doubt you turn into a jihadist over your vacation. it was more likely something he had been taught for years by his relatives.
Very true. so newspapers reported that the manchester bomber became radicalized in syria after three weeks....does that mean he got his final training or his mission?
I couldn't imagine being ok with the fact that my kid was going to die and kill other kids...
Were the parents aware?!?
if this wasn't mentioned yet, the father was at least aware that his sons were into gangs, so he took them to libya, and took away their passports so they couldn't go back to the UK. the bomber convinced him to give him back his passport to go, I can't recall where, and he went to the UK instead.
sounds like the father was on the right track, but too trusting.
Also, my opinion, if anyone is traveling to known terrorist training area's, they should receive a one way ticket.
Oh please let it rain today.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
Britain has kicked the US out of the circle of trust for leaking info like a sieve to the press.
If you're referring to the headline about lap tops beings used as bombs - that leaked info has been public knowledge since early April. Gotta love the media playin us.
the us was the one who leaked the identity of the terrorist. they weren't supposed to do that.
Britain has kicked the US out of the circle of trust for leaking info like a sieve to the press.
If you're referring to the headline about lap tops beings used as bombs - that leaked info has been public knowledge since early April. Gotta love the media playin us.
US officials leaked the identity of the attacker, and later leaked photos of the crime scene. Big time no-no.
I think all the other terrible things that happen to people and animals is part of an argument against God. The things that aren't atrocities determined by free will. Drought, famine, horrible disease, devastating natural disasters, human nature ... Seriously, I don't understand how anyone who actually believes in God doesn't hate his guts.
I'll go back to this argument again. For the most part parents have children that they want to be decent human beings, but it doesn't always happen because they only have the ability to create life. Why can't the same be true of a god? They create life, but can't dictate how that life is lived or how it acts because we are born with our own thoughts and minds.
As I've said, I don't specifically believe in god, but a higher being, and I don't blame it for the shitty actions of humans. That's on us to figure out.
True. Also, God or any random higher being one might imagine can blow jelly beans out of volcanoes and make it rain trumpets, but can't thread a golden needle with the hair of all mankind. In other words, literally anything can be said about God/a higher being - I don't see how any statement is more valid than another when it is all completely made up out of thin air.
watching the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode "The Genesis Tub" put alot of this in perspective.
Whatever works for you. Doesn't matter to me whether someone believes or thinks it's all bullshit. I was Lutheran, then I was atheist and now I'm more of a higher being type believer. Imagine if all digital media was destroyed and lost regarding some of the major events that have happened in the last 100 years and then fast forward 2000 years from now and all you have are some written accounts that vary from a Fox News to a CNN perspective. Where's the middle ground? Hard to believe anything you can't touch, taste, hear, smell or see.
Anyway, I'm going to go eat some Jelly Bean and wait for the next volcano explosion
I'm somewhere in the middle between atheist and agnostic. it depends on the day, really. usually lean atheist, but then if I have time to sit and think too much about how fucking big the universe is and how it got created and how and why and all that, I can't help but think there was some sort of manufacturer to all of this.
but the christian god I was taught about as a kid? NOPE.
So who manufactured the manufacturer? Answer- ehyeh asher ehyeh I AM THAT I AM
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Where do you think it fits in?
The story you linked hasn't several holes in it. It says he wasn't ranting and raving about a few things and then fixated on the Muslim women. The article alluded to the possibility of mental illness. The article also said the women left the scene before being questioned? They were likely very rattled by the disturbingly event, but who does that? Two guys get killed and another injured helping you and you just leave? Maybe I read that wrong.
This is an awful story.
* I reread it. Two people killed and another seriously injured. Gross.
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
Reactionary toward innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. The man seemed to have serious mental issues and was ranting. IMO the biggest issue with humanity and our behavior is not being able to construe individuals vs. the group. Anyway, wish one of the bystanders was trained and had a concealed carry, would've been a different end to the story.
Post edited by dmaradona10 on
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Years ago I had a full beard (Amish men shave around their mouths). My full-blooded grandma saw it and in her beautiful accent said, "Awwww, now why you got for that awwwful brush?" Cracked me up. Off it went!
But, sorry, I digress although I do think it points out that we often make assumptions about cultures we don't well understand.
BTW, there is no god in Buddhism. I don't even consider Buddhism a religion because of this. It is a philosophy.
there are many gods in buddhism, just none that are considered the creator of all things. but I know you what were meaning.
www.headstonesband.com
but a philosophical concept is fluid. a spoon is a spoon. a fork is a fork. those aren't concepts, those are facts. but a god can mean MANY things to many different people. many gods are passive, some are active. there has to be purpose or meaning? who says? I have never seen "god" as defined by those rules. it all seems a bit rigid to me.
www.headstonesband.com
that's my Seinfeldian contribution to this thread.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
"The act of living generates a force field, an energy. That energy surrounds us; when we die, that energy joins with all the other energy. There is a giant mass of energy in the universe that has a good side and a bad side. We are part of the Force because we generate the power that makes the Force live. When we die, we become part of that Force, so we never really die; we continue as part of the Force."
www.headstonesband.com
God is a fairly well defined concept that can't just be ascribed to anything.
If you think that God is the universe or nature or love, or that God is the fact that there is a vague "higher power", you are just an atheist who is afraid to admit what you are lol
sounds like the father was on the right track, but too trusting.
www.headstonesband.com
If you're referring to the headline about lap tops beings used as bombs - that leaked info has been public knowledge since early April. Gotta love the media playin us.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
www.headstonesband.com
Big time no-no.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
Good grief that's dense.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/world/hurling+racial+slurs+muslim+women+portland+train+stabs+kills+tried/13401419/story.html
A man in Portland was "hurling racial slurs" at two women who appeared to be Muslim on a train, then killed two bystanders who stood up for the women and injured another.
The story you linked hasn't several holes in it. It says he wasn't ranting and raving about a few things and then fixated on the Muslim women. The article alluded to the possibility of mental illness. The article also said the women left the scene before being questioned? They were likely very rattled by the disturbingly event, but who does that? Two guys get killed and another injured helping you and you just leave? Maybe I read that wrong.
This is an awful story.
* I reread it. Two people killed and another seriously injured. Gross.
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
Is anyone else's autocorrecting to stupid things? I can't keep up with the corrections.