God vs Logic

Jeanwah · August 2006

I didn't read most of this thread but here's my opinion on the God vs. logic idea. They're mutually exclusive. One's based on fact, one's based on faith. Faith is believing what comman sense tells us not to. So you really can't intertwine them both, you either base your beliefs on logic or you base your beliefs on your faith of God. Unless, of course, your torn between the both of them, like me.

brainofPJ · August 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

As a devout follower of my imaginary friend and my ludicrous beliefs. I insist everyone should head my words, as the allmighty only speaks to me, others would die from the sound of it's voice. The allmighty's real name is Ideetentee or ID10T, but shall be referred to as [size=+3]ൠ[/size]. Any that disobey these rediculous rules shall perish into dust. I hereby order under the rule of [size=+3]ൠ[/size] that all shall lay flat on their stomachs every tuesday morning and roll 3 times to their left, then cluck like a chicken 6 times. Else they die. In every city I shall place a big red button with the words "Do not press" if any shall press this button, they will bring death to all the world, and [size=+3]ൠ[/size] will wipe the map off the map. No one shall carry with them anything, as they may be potentially threatening to me and [size=+3]ൠ[/size]. More rules to follow as [size=+3]ൠ[/size] dictates them to me, and me alone.

i see the 'allmighty' didn't speak to you about correct spelling

Ahnimus · August 2006

brainofPJ wrote:

i see the 'allmighty' didn't speak to you about correct spelling

WTF are you talking about?

I ran a spell checker on it just now and the only thing it suggested was I capitalize Tuesday.

Maybe you are an American and are too ignorant to realize Canadians spell some words differently. I don't know. We spell color; colour, etc..

If you think allmighty should be spelled "all mighty" consider this, in german (my second language) "all mighty" or "all powerful" synonymous with Ominpotent in english is "Allmaechtig" and is one word.

According to Dictionary.com this word could be spelled Almighty, All mighty and All-mighty, so I guess it's not that big of deal is it?

I can spell Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis so buy me a fucking cookie.

Abookamongstthemany · August 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I can spell Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis so buy me a fucking cookie.

Damn, I'll never get a cookie.

Ahnimus · September 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Damn, I'll never get a cookie.

Damn, there shouldn't be a space in the word, I guess I don't get a cookie either.

It's really quite easy to spell, it's just a bunch of little words put together. What is that called again?

Pneu-mono-ultra-microscopic-silico-volcano-coniosis
A lung disease from inhaling silica dust. that little package they put in electronics to absorb moisture is silica, but the disease is mostly from miners of silica. Although if you ingest that little package you are probably in trouble.
It's the longest word that isn't part of DNA, although it is a medical term.

The longest word that isn't a medical term is antidisestablishmentarianism, I'm sure everyone knows that one.

Abookamongstthemany · September 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Damn, there shouldn't be a space in the word, I guess I don't get a cookie either.

It's really quite easy to spell, it's just a bunch of little words put together. What is that called again?

Pneu-mono-ultra-microscopic-silico-volcano-coniosis
A lung disease from inhaling silica dust. that little package they put in electronics to absorb moisture is silica, but the disease is mostly from miners of silica. Although if you ingest that little package you are probably in trouble.
It's the longest word that isn't part of DNA, although it is a medical term.

The longest word that isn't a medical term is antidisestablishmentarianism, I'm sure everyone knows that one.

Spelling just ain't that important to me. Of course, I do put forth an effort but the tedious details aren't my strong point.

Ahnimus · September 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Spelling just ain't that important to me. Of course, I do put forth an effort but the tedious details aren't my strong point.

Up until the point that I was 15 I was pretty well considered an idiot by everyone. I did poorly in school, my parents, friends, etc... just thought I was below average intelligence.

I was entered into an assessment program, against my will. Appointed by the courts. During that assessment I was given a series of intelligence tests. These tests were unique, they didn't test aquired knowledge as most IQ tests do. They tests the ability to abosrb knowledge and calculate possibilities to come to accurate conclusions. Part of this was giving me series of increasingly difficult questions in math, english, etc.. and seeing how I was able to figure them out. As an example, they would show me a word like googolplex and ask me to define it. The math questions would be quite difficult aswell. My testing ended at 3rd or 4th university level on all tests.

At this point everyone was confused about me. I failed in school, I did stupid things, but yet I appeared to be a genius (according to their test). I don't consider myself a genius, I lean towards a disbelief that anyone is truly genius. I saw an opportunity to really prove myself to people that were labelling me unintelligent and I succeeded by determination. It really changed my life and since I've strived for near perfection in just about everything.

However, I don't care much about spelling myself. I know there will always be people that look/talk down to those who make mistakes. However, those people are usually too afraid to risk making a mistake and don't publish anything. I'm also thankful for my experience because it's taught me to not take things personally. Or else it may have really upset me.

I am going to assume that brainofPJ took offense to my little rant. I obviously intended to mock religious beliefs. I combined several statements by various religious sects and governments. I meant to include "you're either with me or against me" but I forgot. I did include "wipe the map off the map" though. I'm just trying to put it into perspective, because I think any intelligent person with a decent respect for other human beings can consider with fairness what other people believe. I accept that Jews believe they should own Eretz Israel, however, myself and billions of other people believe the opposite. I understand that millions of people believe a god exists. Which it's obvious, I think is rediculous. I try to respect that, however, many times people expect to receive privledge or material as a reward for their belief. I totally disagree, and millions do aswell. A religious belief system in part or in whole should not be a valid arguement for anything.

catefrances · September 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

The longest word that isn't a medical term is antidisestablishmentarianism, I'm sure everyone knows that one.

ah! but do you know what it means?

Ahnimus · September 2006

catefrances wrote:

ah! but do you know what it means?

yea it's not coming to me at the moment, it has something to do with religion.

I can just look it up for the number of times it's actually used

brainofPJ · September 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

WTF are you talking about?

I ran a spell checker on it just now and the only thing it suggested was I capitalize Tuesday.

Maybe you are an American and are too ignorant to realize Canadians spell some words differently. I don't know. We spell color; colour, etc..

If you think allmighty should be spelled "all mighty" consider this, in german (my second language) "all mighty" or "all powerful" synonymous with Ominpotent in english is "Allmaechtig" and is one word.

According to Dictionary.com this word could be spelled Almighty, All mighty and All-mighty, so I guess it's not that big of deal is it?

I can spell Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis so buy me a fucking cookie.

spell words differently, you mean mispell?

heed, not head

ridiculous, not rediculous

Ahnimus · September 2006

brainofPJ wrote:

spell words differently, you mean mispell?

heed, not head

ridiculous, not rediculous

lol, can you spell juvenile, childish, inane?

WindNoSail · September 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Both are faulty but science changes it's faults and it's constantly improving whereas religion doen't correct itself, advance or evolve. It is what it is...no questions or new ways of living/believing are accepted. One learns and one stays stuck in the same thought.

I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.

Just a thought.

Ahnimus · September 2006

WindNoSail wrote:

I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.

Just a thought.

IMO, religion changes only because it exists within the boundaries of science.

Abookamongstthemany · September 2006

WindNoSail wrote:

I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.

Just a thought.

Whatever god wants or means is tainted as soon as it is received and filtered by man then reproduced. So no religion is ever going to be held up to any kind of tests or studies. There can be no logic applied, the idea of religion is a flawed idea. Man came up with god after all, there is no proof we can speak of witnessed by our senses, so god is a idea stemming from faulty humans based on faith and nothing else. How can you continually express how humans are so imperfect and flawed but at the same time have such faith in these words and rules they claim to have received from an invisable being they heard in their head? People that claim such things now are called insane and their group of followers are called cults.

WindNoSail · September 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

IMO, religion changes only because it exists within the boundaries of science.

When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).

Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.

Ahnimus · September 2006

WindNoSail wrote:

When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).

Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.

I don't know, I don't really care. The bible isn't literal, it's not fictional, it's incomprehensible and that makes it bullshit to me.

Ahnimus · September 2006

WindNoSail wrote:

When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).

Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.

I don't know, I don't really care. The bible isn't literal, it's not fictional, it's incomprehensible and that makes it bullshit to me.

WindNoSail · September 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Whatever god wants or means is tainted as soon as it is received and filtered by man then reproduced. So no religion is ever going to be held up to any kind of tests or studies. There can be no logic applied, the idea of religion is a flawed idea. Man came up with god after all, there is no proof we can speak of witnessed by our senses, so god is a idea stemming from faulty humans based on faith and nothing else. How can you continually express how humans are so imperfect and flawed but at the same time have such faith in these words and rules they claim to have received from an invisable being they heard in their head? People that claim such things now are called insane and their group of followers are called cults.

If you are convinced there is no god, then of course you think it is just man's religion and then you get the idea the religion was created to be misused.

My point is, your intepretation of religion has nowhere else to go but as you have concluded. Very LOGICAL I would say for you conclude this.

But, if you can entertain that there is a god, then the questions arise. Is the faith wrong or the people who practice it? And are all people wrong who practice it? You would have to LOGICALLY conclude that some people got it right and some got it wrong, but you couldn't say that it was the religion's fault for the failures of the people.

After you got through that, you would be left to a question of which religion is of God....but that is another thread I think

It is easier to just say 'no god' cause what follows if you say there is a god gets pretty involved.

I suggest everyone should explore the idea cause it is the same reflection that leads to other philisophical discussions about life and purpose and morality and love, and how to live in peace. All very good things to think about.

Ahnimus · September 2006

In Hinduism, the cow is considered sacred and its protection is a recurrent theme in which she is symbolic of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. Most Hindus respect the cow as a matriarchal figure for her gentle qualities and providing nurturing milk and its products for a largely vegetarian diet. Hindus do not worship the cow, yet it holds an honoured place in society and most will not eat beef in general.

Man, there you go, you can't please everyone. It would suck to be Hindu and see half the world eating cows all the time.

Abookamongstthemany · September 2006

WindNoSail wrote:

If you are convinced there is no god, then of course you think it is just man's religion and then you get the idea the religion was created to be misused.

My point is, your intepretation of religion has nowhere else to go but as you have concluded. Very LOGICAL I would say for you conclude this.

But, if you can entertain that there is a god, then the questions arise. Is the faith wrong or the people who practice it? And are all people wrong who practice it? You would have to LOGICALLY conclude that some people got it right and some got it wrong, but you couldn't say that it was the religion's fault for the failures of the people.

After you got through that, you would be left to a question of which religion is of God....but that is another thread I think

It is easier to just say 'no god' cause what follows if you say there is a god gets pretty involved.

I suggest everyone should explore the idea cause it is the same reflection that leads to other philisophical discussions about life and purpose and morality and love, and how to live in peace. All very good things to think about.

It is easier to say there are no reptilians living in the center of the earth bc what follows gets pretty involved....yeah, I just don't think so, complicated or not.

You can explore all those things you mentioned with or without religion.

God vs Logic

Comments

Categories