Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.
It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.
The term mathematical certainty is actually meaningless outside of satire.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yes but creation doesn't exist. It was already something else. Thats what infinity is.
When it comes to combining molecules and energy not always do you get the same outcome as you do with numbers. In fact never in reality do you get the exact same outcomes like you do with numbers.
No two of anything are exactly the same in reality. Quite different than numbers which are always exactly the same and never change.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Because you can't create something out of nothing. There is no such reality. There is also no such thing as nothing. The condition of nothing does not, nor has it ever existed. Everything was already something else before what it is (and before that, and before that etc...and so on forever). You can't lose energy because there is nowhere for it to go. It only breaks down and recombines to become something else. This process is infinite and everywhere.
It's an impossibility for some entity to create absolutely everything that is to be out of thin air. What space was he/she occupying when he/she did it? It's a catch 22. A simple construct devised by simple people living in simple times.
I used to say the same thing, "there is no such thing as nothing." It's something of a statement that needs context. Your version of that context relies on physics, yet denies recognition of what is recognizable. Is that not something? Nothing is something.
Yes but creation doesn't exist. It was already something else. Thats what infinity is.
When it comes to combining molecules and energy not always do you get the same outcome as you do with numbers. In fact never in reality do you get the exact same outcomes like you do with numbers.
No two of anything are exactly the same in reality. Quite different than numbers which are always exactly the same and never change.
Yet, from what we've seen of physics in the past 100 years, is it so hard to conceptualize that what we know to be true is only an illusion? At least to an extent, as far as energy and matter and anti-matter go...
You make an interesting argument that I haven't heard before. I think you're entering into something there along the lines of Time. "In reality" you mean that Time is a constant moving forward, unstopping. You don't know that as fact, though.
Q: Hey man.
A: I just don't like the sure, hard answers.
Q: I know.
A: "In reality?" What the fuck does that mean?
Q: Physics is reality?
A: Physics is a mathematical certainty.
Q: Peeps aint picking up on it.
A: I see.
Q: These are Pearl Jam fans. Brightest of the bunch.
A: Does Stone read this shit?
Q: Prolly.
Yet, from what we've seen of physics in the past 100 years, is it so hard to conceptualize that what we know to be true is only an illusion? At least to an extent, as far as energy and matter and anti-matter go...
You make an interesting argument that I haven't heard before. I think you're entering into something there along the lines Time. "In reality" you mean that time is a constant moving forward, unstopping. You don't know that as fact, though.
Actually everything I'm saying is rests on basic fundamentals, where I'm either 100% wrong or 100% right. Namely empty universe v.s. full universe. Once one understands the impossibility of "nothing" given our current reality, then it all comes into clarity.
Unless all of this is fake, the universe has always had something in it. An empty (complete nothingness) universe can never actually become, or suddenly, turn into something, otherwise it just wasn't empty to begin with.
Nothing can be outside of the universe and inject matter into it because everywhere is everywhere is everywhere. It's an impossibility. Therefore we can be 100% certain (unless all this is fake) that something was always here to begin with (here being everywhere and as far out as the mind can possibly fathom...i.e. the universe.)
The impossibility of the existence of nothing, and infinity, goes against what the human mind has been conditioned to understanding throughout the ages, but it's very basic in concept when put into perspective.
It really is all or nothing so to speak.
That's why I say there's no pinpoint on creation of anything anywhere because whatever it could possible be, it was already something else before what it currently is. Ironically like the how bible says "of no beginning and no end". They got that part right, but missed the point by then citing and promoting the whole creation concept. An inconsistency...different chapters written by different people I would imagine.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Actually everything I'm saying is rests on basic fundamentals, where I'm either 100% wrong or 100% right. Namely empty universe v.s. full universe. Once one understands the impossibility of "nothing" given our current reality, then it all comes into clarity.
Unless all of this is fake, the universe has always had something in it. An empty (complete nothingness) universe can never actually become, or suddenly, turn into something, otherwise it just wasn't empty to begin with.
Nothing can be outside of the universe and inject matter into it because everywhere is everywhere is everywhere. It's an impossibility. Therefore we can be 100% certain (unless all this is fake) that something was always here to begin with (here being everywhere and as far out as the mind can possibly fathom...i.e. the universe.)
The impossibility of the existence of nothing, and infinity, goes against what the human mind has been conditioned to understanding throughout the ages, but it's very basic in concept when put into perspective.
It really is all or nothing so to speak.
That's why I say there's no pinpoint on creation of anything anywhere because whatever it could possible be, it was already something else before what it currently is. Ironically like the how bible says "of no beginning and no end". They got that part right, but missed the point by then citing and promoting the whole creation concept. An inconsistency...different chapters written by different people I would imagine.
Maybe the bible was the ultimate promotion of self-awareness? Are you positing that those who say the Alpha and Omega of the bible is the end all and be all? Maybe it was written just as you would have written it. Just a shot in the dark there. If you take away the layers of history and lean into the fact that those guys living then were just the same as we are, learning all the same emotions, falling in love with all the same women...
Maybe the bible was the ultimate promotion of self-awareness? Are you positing that those who say the Alpha and Omega of the bible is the end all and be all? Maybe it was written just as you would have written it. Just a shot in the dark there. If you take away the layers of history and lean into the fact that those guys living then were just the same as we are, learning all the same emotions, falling in love with all the same women...
I'm out.
Out is a mathematical certainty.
Yes like what you're saying. Pretty much exactly what you're saying. The only thing they were really missing back then was the conservation of energy principle. They would have wondered if energy doesn't go away anywhere (or has ever gone anywhere) where in fact does it go, and how does it go?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If you think of God the way you've shared your interpretation on the first page of this post, then the mathematics of man plays a part in there somewhere.
Follow the white rabbit.
Logical fallacies run deep.
As I was saying about common sense. I thought about this last night "It is said that an appeal to the majority or argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.". This statement is also a logical fallacy, by saying "It is said" I am commiting the fallacy, argumentum ad populum, by appealing to the majority. Or am I? Perhaps it is a different fallacy, an appeal to elitism, because the majority would not say common sense is a fallacy. Yet, it is not true, simply because an elite group say it is, so much more explanation must be given. I'd like to think by this time it's clear why an appeal to the majority and an appeal to the elite are both logical fallacies, neither one can be said to add weight to truth. So I feel further explanation has been obtained.
The aquisition of knowledge and determination of truth must be well thought out, seeking to avoid any of these fallacies and many others. Your statement is but a crumb in a seeming trail that leads to some absolute certainty. But I fear that this trail is rife with fallaciousness and hasn't been scrutinized to the extent neccessary to determine with a reasonable error margin a significant truth. My wisdom warns me "Do not follow this path" as it will be a time consuming one with possibly no fruits of labor. I have investigated many claims of mathematical truth, ontological truth and so on, all of which have led to similar conclusions, God is but a possibility, a highly improbable one, no absolute certainty can be obtained about such a being.
I cannot prove that something does not exist, because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A hidden variable might be lurking in the shadows that I am unaware of. The existence of such a thing can only be proven positive by a presentation of evidence. Thus it would be unwise to assume all things possible exist until evidence to the contrary is made available. More wise is to assume all things possible do not exist until evidence of it's existence presents its self. Since the latter is a possible outcome of any such thing which does actually exist, and the former will ensure that I assume many things exist which do not actually exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As I was saying about common sense. I thought about this last night "It is said that an appeal to the majority or argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.". This statement is also a logical fallacy, by saying "It is said" I am commiting the fallacy, argumentum ad populum, by appealing to the majority. Or am I? Perhaps it is a different fallacy, an appeal to elitism, because the majority would not say common sense is a fallacy. Yet, it is not true, simply because an elite group say it is, so much more explanation must be given. I'd like to think by this time it's clear why an appeal to the majority and an appeal to the elite are both logical fallacies, neither one can be said to add weight to truth. So I feel further explanation has been obtained.
The aquisition of knowledge and determination of truth must be well thought out, seeking to avoid any of these fallacies and many others. Your statement is but a crumb in a seeming trail that leads to some absolute certainty. But I fear that this trail is rife with fallaciousness and hasn't been scrutinized to the extent neccessary to determine with a reasonable error margin a significant truth. My wisdom warns me "Do not follow this path" as it will be a time consuming one with possibly no fruits of labor. I have investigated many claims of mathematical truth, ontological truth and so on, all of which have led to similar conclusions, God is but a possibility, a highly improbable one, no absolute certainty can be obtained about such a being.
I cannot prove that something does not exist, because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A hidden variable might be lurking in the shadows that I am unaware of. The existence of such a thing can only be proven positive by a presentation of evidence. Thus it would be unwise to assume all things possible exist until evidence to the contrary is made available. More wise is to assume all things possible do not exist until evidence of it's existence presents its self. Since the latter is a possible outcome of any such thing which does actually exist, and the former will ensure that I assume many things exist which do not actually exist.
I'll consider that mathematical - you subtracted all the fun out of it.
I think faith is human need, a way to protect one's self esteem!
We, as humans, are social animals. And as such we need something that regulates our society(ies):
We invented the Law, but it has flaws;
We invented ethics, but it also has flaws;
We invented religion, but it's not tangible.
Descartes, with his "Cogito ergo sum" theory, said that God was something "a priori", which means that is something embedded in us, in an irrational way!
Others, like Hume, discarded this. But I think that he had a point, because we need to believe in something that fills the gaps left by rationality. But is error was considering that it had to be God, it doesn't!
I rather believe in Mankind. Although sometimes it's hard, because of our leaders actions. But I believe in my friends and family, I believe that in a time of need, they will be there for me, as I will be there for them. Because this is the right thing to do.
The reason I have for not discarding religion is lonelyness: lonely people need something that helps them hold on to life. For these people, religion may be a healthy way to live life.
Either one chooses to believe in Man or God, the result is the same: dependence. Which is something that is part of us and makes us sociable.
PS: I'm a western,catholic-raised guy, from a deeply catholic country. So it's possible that some bias is at work in my views. I don't believe in the absolute truth.
Well jorge I'm an athiest but I still agree with some of what you've said here and disagree with some of it too.
I do think faith is a human need, or a part of humanity's make up if you will.
Not so sure on the bit about it protecting one's self esteem. I'd probably need you to expand on that, because I don't really get what you mean.
I do think people need faith, just not necessarily faith in a god.
And I don't think it's an either or on the believing in man or believing in God.
I don't believe in God but I don't believe in Man in place of not believing in God. I'm a big believer in Love. Love for family, love for friends, love for oneself, love for the world around us, love for humans and animals.
Descartes, with his "Cogito ergo sum" theory, said that God was something "a priori", which means that is something embedded in us, in an irrational way!
Others, like Hume, discarded this. But I think that he had a point, because we need to believe in something that fills the gaps left by rationality. But his error was considering that it had to be God, it doesn't!
I found this bit you bring up really interesting. I think I agree with you. I would like to hear you expand on it.
Kids change everything, that's for sure. If my kids had been small, my response probably would have been closer to yours. It probably also helped that this was not the first time I had good reason to think my goose was cooked ... seriously, you do get better with practice.
I have many, many sad moments, about not seeing people again, about never getting to be a grandma (which is something I've always looked forward to). But it's all sadness, never fear. As I said, I feel so lousy most days that I probably would have taken matters into my own hands by now if it weren't for my kids.
wow. when laura posted this, i'm not sure how many of us read it or even realized how bad it was for her at that time. but i can honestly say that, though i certainly have never faced what she was facing, i have had times in my life when sadness seemed to be the prevailing emotion and it was only because i was a mother that i knew i needed to hang on and get through it. i've never been suicidal, but i have had fleeting thoughts of running away somewhere and just hiding from the emotional pain.
i think there's truth to the phrase, "there are no atheists in foxholes", meaning that when the shit hits the fan, most people will find themselves praying to something, someONE, hoping that their prayers will at least not be in vain. i know that's been true in my case as well.
anyway, i still miss hippiemom. i hope there is an afterlife, and that she's lying back relaxing and enjoying herself. peace, laura.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
wow. when laura posted this, i'm not sure how many of us read it or even realized how bad it was for her at that time. but i can honestly say that, though i certainly have never faced what she was facing, i have had times in my life when sadness seemed to be the prevailing emotion and it was only because i was a mother that i knew i needed to hang on and get through it. i've never been suicidal, but i have had fleeting thoughts of running away somewhere and just hiding from the emotional pain.
i think there's truth to the phrase, "there are no atheists in foxholes", meaning that when the shit hits the fan, most people will find themselves praying to something, someONE, hoping that their prayers will at least not be in vain. i know that's been true in my case as well.
anyway, i still miss hippiemom. i hope there is an afterlife, and that she's lying back relaxing and enjoying herself. peace, laura.
Laura was in the fox hole..and didn't seem to succumb....course I have just a few posts from which to make this observation.
i think there's truth to the phrase, "there are no atheists in foxholes", meaning that when the shit hits the fan, most people will find themselves praying to something, someONE, hoping that their prayers will at least not be in vain. i know that's been true in my case as well.
Those are the people who end up dead. The ones that take action survive.
I'm just referring to the original question of this thread not to the discussion that has recently taking place here:
I do not believe in God or any other power that rules the universe, I don't believe in a plan for me or you, I do not believe that life makes sense at all.
Everything is happening because it's happening and it's happening with no sense behind it. This is what I FEEL. This is nothing logical. It is an existential feeling I feel. I don't want to convince anybody because this is MY truth and I have to bear it, all by myself, with no explanations, no excuses and no relief.
#Hamburg 2000 * Berlin 06 # Munich * Dusseldorf 2007 # Berlin * Manchester * London 2009 # Dublin * Belfast * Berlin 2010 # Amsterdam I & II * Berlin I & II * Stockholm * Oslo * Copenhagen 2012# Amsterdam I & II * Milan * Trieste * Vienna * Berlin 2014 ___ # EV 2012 - Amsterdam I & II # 2014: Amsterdam I & II - Milan - Trieste - Vienna - Berlin # 2018: Amsterdam I & II - Prague - Krakow - Berlin # 2021 (hopefully): Amsterdam I & II - Vienna - Krakow - Prague
i am an atheist. i don't believe in a God cause it makes absolutely no sense to me. this has been the case since i was 11 years old. religion does not give me the answers i require.
I don't believe in God because apparently he told that brother the other day to kill and mutilate his girlfriend and then cut off her ear, cut some steaks from ehr body and boil them, possibly eat them. So while he may exist, I don't believe in him.
Seems that every religious figure in our history has a specific message of peace-love your neighbor, that kind of thing. Also seems that only when religion is involved does that message turn to violence and hate.
I can think of man's 2 worst ideals that have led to the most violence and destruction-NATIONALISM and RELIGION.
Finding my beliefs is still, and probably will always be, an ongoing process. I've spent considerable time studying, thinking about, and experiencing everything I could that somehow relates to God or religion. I was raised in the Catholic Church, and during my childhood, this was enough for me. I attended sunday school, actively read the Bible, and interpreted on my own. Unfortunately, I found out that my interpretation of the Bible was not in accordance with the interpretation provided by the Catholic Church. For me it was an uplifting source of lessons, guidelines and ideas, rich in symbolism and metaphors. I tried to work this out but simply could not. So many things taught by the Church just seemed completely ludicrous to me. After this, I spent some time briefly looking into other major religions. None of these really suited me either. I most often truly appreciated certain core aspects of each faith, but when these aspects were made their own by others in the religion, I found myself disagreeing and feeling unsatisfied. I then went through a very tough time in my life, and did receive some comfort from God, spirituality, whatever you want to call it. Once this period passed I started considering my faith again, reading the work of numerous scholars/philosophers. For a time I held the belief that there was an impersonal God, some type of inexplicable force that could fill in gaps in our knowledge (including scientific knowledge. Taking high-level physics courses showed how much is left unexplained by modern science). However, constant coincidences and answered prayers made me feel that God could not be truly impersonal. I don't think of God as a man, or an unseeable force, more of a combination of the two if that makes any sense, a power that is at work everywhere, and that most likely takes whatever form you believe in.
wow that is a long post. anyone who manages to read the whole thing, PM me and i'll give you a dollar. not really i'm a poor college student, but you'll at least get a pat on the back
"Ah, life is a gate, a way, a path to Paradise anyway, why not live for fun and joy and love or some sort of girl by a fireside, why not go to your desire and LAUGH..."
I don't believe in God because apparently he told that brother the other day to kill and mutilate his girlfriend and then cut off her ear, cut some steaks from ehr body and boil them, possibly eat them. So while he may exist, I don't believe in him.
how do you know it was God who said that?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Again playing the devil's advocate here but why should I believe someone else, someone who does wonderful things when he says god told him to do it but not this guy?
Again playing the devil's advocate here but why should I believe someone else, someone who does wonderful things when he says god told him to do it but not this guy?
Exactly. If god tells some guy to kill, cook and eat his lady then who the fuck am I to argue?
Comments
)&*(%*&$% is a mathematical certainty.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The term mathematical certainty is actually meaningless outside of satire.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Is it?
I disagree.
Creation is founded on addition.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes but creation doesn't exist. It was already something else. Thats what infinity is.
When it comes to combining molecules and energy not always do you get the same outcome as you do with numbers. In fact never in reality do you get the exact same outcomes like you do with numbers.
No two of anything are exactly the same in reality. Quite different than numbers which are always exactly the same and never change.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I used to say the same thing, "there is no such thing as nothing." It's something of a statement that needs context. Your version of that context relies on physics, yet denies recognition of what is recognizable. Is that not something? Nothing is something.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yet, from what we've seen of physics in the past 100 years, is it so hard to conceptualize that what we know to be true is only an illusion? At least to an extent, as far as energy and matter and anti-matter go...
You make an interesting argument that I haven't heard before. I think you're entering into something there along the lines of Time. "In reality" you mean that Time is a constant moving forward, unstopping. You don't know that as fact, though.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
blah blah blah.
i like my own brain better.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Q: Hey man.
A: I just don't like the sure, hard answers.
Q: I know.
A: "In reality?" What the fuck does that mean?
Q: Physics is reality?
A: Physics is a mathematical certainty.
Q: Peeps aint picking up on it.
A: I see.
Q: These are Pearl Jam fans. Brightest of the bunch.
A: Does Stone read this shit?
Q: Prolly.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Actually everything I'm saying is rests on basic fundamentals, where I'm either 100% wrong or 100% right. Namely empty universe v.s. full universe. Once one understands the impossibility of "nothing" given our current reality, then it all comes into clarity.
Unless all of this is fake, the universe has always had something in it. An empty (complete nothingness) universe can never actually become, or suddenly, turn into something, otherwise it just wasn't empty to begin with.
Nothing can be outside of the universe and inject matter into it because everywhere is everywhere is everywhere. It's an impossibility. Therefore we can be 100% certain (unless all this is fake) that something was always here to begin with (here being everywhere and as far out as the mind can possibly fathom...i.e. the universe.)
The impossibility of the existence of nothing, and infinity, goes against what the human mind has been conditioned to understanding throughout the ages, but it's very basic in concept when put into perspective.
It really is all or nothing so to speak.
That's why I say there's no pinpoint on creation of anything anywhere because whatever it could possible be, it was already something else before what it currently is. Ironically like the how bible says "of no beginning and no end". They got that part right, but missed the point by then citing and promoting the whole creation concept. An inconsistency...different chapters written by different people I would imagine.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm out.
Out is a mathematical certainty.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes like what you're saying. Pretty much exactly what you're saying. The only thing they were really missing back then was the conservation of energy principle. They would have wondered if energy doesn't go away anywhere (or has ever gone anywhere) where in fact does it go, and how does it go?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/255/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Logical fallacies run deep.
As I was saying about common sense. I thought about this last night "It is said that an appeal to the majority or argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.". This statement is also a logical fallacy, by saying "It is said" I am commiting the fallacy, argumentum ad populum, by appealing to the majority. Or am I? Perhaps it is a different fallacy, an appeal to elitism, because the majority would not say common sense is a fallacy. Yet, it is not true, simply because an elite group say it is, so much more explanation must be given. I'd like to think by this time it's clear why an appeal to the majority and an appeal to the elite are both logical fallacies, neither one can be said to add weight to truth. So I feel further explanation has been obtained.
The aquisition of knowledge and determination of truth must be well thought out, seeking to avoid any of these fallacies and many others. Your statement is but a crumb in a seeming trail that leads to some absolute certainty. But I fear that this trail is rife with fallaciousness and hasn't been scrutinized to the extent neccessary to determine with a reasonable error margin a significant truth. My wisdom warns me "Do not follow this path" as it will be a time consuming one with possibly no fruits of labor. I have investigated many claims of mathematical truth, ontological truth and so on, all of which have led to similar conclusions, God is but a possibility, a highly improbable one, no absolute certainty can be obtained about such a being.
I cannot prove that something does not exist, because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A hidden variable might be lurking in the shadows that I am unaware of. The existence of such a thing can only be proven positive by a presentation of evidence. Thus it would be unwise to assume all things possible exist until evidence to the contrary is made available. More wise is to assume all things possible do not exist until evidence of it's existence presents its self. Since the latter is a possible outcome of any such thing which does actually exist, and the former will ensure that I assume many things exist which do not actually exist.
and here i am thinking OJ saying he didnt murder his wife and her friend was the biggest lie.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'll consider that mathematical - you subtracted all the fun out of it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I do think faith is a human need, or a part of humanity's make up if you will.
Not so sure on the bit about it protecting one's self esteem. I'd probably need you to expand on that, because I don't really get what you mean.
I do think people need faith, just not necessarily faith in a god.
And I don't think it's an either or on the believing in man or believing in God.
I don't believe in God but I don't believe in Man in place of not believing in God. I'm a big believer in Love. Love for family, love for friends, love for oneself, love for the world around us, love for humans and animals.
I found this bit you bring up really interesting. I think I agree with you. I would like to hear you expand on it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
wow. when laura posted this, i'm not sure how many of us read it or even realized how bad it was for her at that time. but i can honestly say that, though i certainly have never faced what she was facing, i have had times in my life when sadness seemed to be the prevailing emotion and it was only because i was a mother that i knew i needed to hang on and get through it. i've never been suicidal, but i have had fleeting thoughts of running away somewhere and just hiding from the emotional pain.
i think there's truth to the phrase, "there are no atheists in foxholes", meaning that when the shit hits the fan, most people will find themselves praying to something, someONE, hoping that their prayers will at least not be in vain. i know that's been true in my case as well.
anyway, i still miss hippiemom. i hope there is an afterlife, and that she's lying back relaxing and enjoying herself. peace, laura.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Laura was in the fox hole..and didn't seem to succumb....course I have just a few posts from which to make this observation.
Those are the people who end up dead. The ones that take action survive.
I do not believe in God or any other power that rules the universe, I don't believe in a plan for me or you, I do not believe that life makes sense at all.
Everything is happening because it's happening and it's happening with no sense behind it. This is what I FEEL. This is nothing logical. It is an existential feeling I feel. I don't want to convince anybody because this is MY truth and I have to bear it, all by myself, with no explanations, no excuses and no relief.
I can think of man's 2 worst ideals that have led to the most violence and destruction-NATIONALISM and RELIGION.
THe church is within us all.
wow that is a long post. anyone who manages to read the whole thing, PM me and i'll give you a dollar. not really i'm a poor college student, but you'll at least get a pat on the back
He said god told him to do it.
Again playing the devil's advocate here but why should I believe someone else, someone who does wonderful things when he says god told him to do it but not this guy?
naděje umírá poslední
why do they have to be mutually exclusive? can't a person pray AND take action?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Yeah, the old saying is something like,
"God helps those who help themselves."
I am not going to enter in to a debate about it but I agree that faith is part faith in God and part faith in yourself.
While both are different, i.e., one is (to me) divine (God) and the other earthly (me) and I think He gave us both to use here in our lives.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........