West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: RootieTooty on December 06, 2007, 10:36:46 AM
-
(http://us.ent2.yimg.com/musicfinder.yahoo.com/images/yahoo/epic/camron/0502_camron_b.jpg) :love2:
-
::)
-
Allah says no.
-
fuck you motherufcker.its blasphemy to all religions you´re dumb ass 15 yrs. old.
-
i respect him more than all other religions
-
i respect him more than all other religions
hahah a mutha fucka wearin pink? cmon now even jesus dint even wear pink.
-
lmao
-
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
-
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Im starting to lean towards that direction, about to stop studying the bible with Jehovah's witness
-
there is only one god
-
What's the matter with you? Everyone knows God isn't black.
-
oh yeah best alias LOL!!!!!! uncle ruckus hands down LOL!!!!!!!!!
-
i respect him more than all other religions
I hope camrons family dies, and he's left alive.
I also hope the same thing to you.
-
Cam'ron is far from gods.
-
Allah says no.
But all black men are God and Cam Ron is a black man. You hypocrite.
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Sure Blasphemy is real. What God is exactly is unknown but God is good, meaning what is good is God. The spiritual energy that creates love is what God is. So going against what is right when you know it to be right and choosing to go against it regardless is what blasphemy is. Simply saying something stupid like "Fuck God", or walking around the mall with a T shirt with giant letters printed on that say "Jesus is a Cunt" (I saw it once in tha mall last summer) is not blasphemy, it's just idiocy; dumb kids trying to get attention. Even being upest with God for the rain that destroyed all your crops and coming out while it's raining with a shot gun and shooting the skies in an attempt to wound God or threaten him to keep him from letting more rain fall (I had a great uncle in Greece that did that once) is not blasphemy. It's simply being fucking pissed off, and a little nuts from what I understand. These may be all sins but they are not blasphemy. Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
-
I was on the toilet like 30 minutes ago cause I thought I had a huge crap coming and guess what? It was only a big wet fart that needed to get out. Oh well.
-
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Sure Blasphemy is real. What God is exactly is unknown but God is good, meaning what is good is God. The spiritual energy that creates love is what God is. So going against what is right when you know it to be right and choosing to go against it regardless is what blasphemy is. Simply saying something stupid like "Fuck God", or walking around the mall with a T shirt with giant letters printed on that say "Jesus is a Cunt" (I saw it once in tha mall last summer) is not blasphemy, it's just idiocy; dumb kids trying to get attention. Even being upest with God for the rain that destroyed all your crops and coming out while it's raining with a shot gun and shooting the skies in an attempt to wound God or threaten him to keep him from letting more rain fall (I had a great uncle in Greece that did that once) is not blasphemy. It's simply being fucking pissed off, and a little nuts from what I understand. These may be all sins but they are not blasphemy. Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
lol, your great uncle is badass
im down with your definition of blasphemy, though i usually just think of that description as karma.....if you give out positive energy by being a decent person, you'll attract it back, if you put out negative energy by being a cunt, you'll get it back, so in that sense I credit that to the energy of the "Universe" instead of "God"....
people in power just use the term blasphemy as a tool....while maybe the true meaning of the word is ignored, or is given the punishment of burning in eternal hellfire
haha, I could probably talk about this for hours... constantly contradicting myself. Just because noone knows whats out there for sure... thats why I cant say that I believe in God, how can you believe in something you know absolutely nothing about, all you're saying is that you believe that the term "god" exists, and that somehow, whatever it is, created everything around us. Nobody can possibly know what its intentions were, why it did what it did, and what it wants to do/not do. People answer that by saying that they have faith, but then cant describe what it is they have faith in.....faith in god? thats just a circle.
I figure, just be a good person.... be positive, attract positiveness, create meaningful relationships with those around you, be in touch with yourself and the earth, and then you'll either find out what is all about when you die, or you dont, and thats it.
lol, i took this topic about cam'ron and wet farts to a whole 'nother level, so heres a monkey dancing..
:monkey_dance2:
-
But all black men are God and Cam Ron is a black man. You hypocrite.
Cam is an Uncle Tom and a fag. That makes him part of the 10%. Meaning he has embraced devilish ways.
-
But all black men are God and Cam Ron is a black man. You hypocrite.
Cam is an Uncle Tom and a fag. That makes him part of the 10%. Meaning he has embraced devilish ways.
Word, cam represents the agendas of conservative america
-
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Sure Blasphemy is real. What God is exactly is unknown but God is good, meaning what is good is God. The spiritual energy that creates love is what God is. So going against what is right when you know it to be right and choosing to go against it regardless is what blasphemy is. Simply saying something stupid like "Fuck God", or walking around the mall with a T shirt with giant letters printed on that say "Jesus is a Cunt" (I saw it once in tha mall last summer) is not blasphemy, it's just idiocy; dumb kids trying to get attention. Even being upest with God for the rain that destroyed all your crops and coming out while it's raining with a shot gun and shooting the skies in an attempt to wound God or threaten him to keep him from letting more rain fall (I had a great uncle in Greece that did that once) is not blasphemy. It's simply being fucking pissed off, and a little nuts from what I understand. These may be all sins but they are not blasphemy. Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
lol, your great uncle is badass
im down with your definition of blasphemy, though i usually just think of that description as karma.....if you give out positive energy by being a decent person, you'll attract it back, if you put out negative energy by being a cunt, you'll get it back, so in that sense I credit that to the energy of the "Universe" instead of "God"....
people in power just use the term blasphemy as a tool....while maybe the true meaning of the word is ignored, or is given the punishment of burning in eternal hellfire
haha, I could probably talk about this for hours... constantly contradicting myself. Just because noone knows whats out there for sure... thats why I cant say that I believe in God, how can you believe in something you know absolutely nothing about, all you're saying is that you believe that the term "god" exists, and that somehow, whatever it is, created everything around us. Nobody can possibly know what its intentions were, why it did what it did, and what it wants to do/not do. People answer that by saying that they have faith, but then cant describe what it is they have faith in.....faith in god? thats just a circle.
I figure, just be a good person.... be positive, attract positiveness, create meaningful relationships with those around you, be in touch with yourself and the earth, and then you'll either find out what is all about when you die, or you dont, and thats it.
lol, i took this topic about cam'ron and wet farts to a whole 'nother level, so heres a monkey dancing..
:monkey_dance2:
He was crazy from what I understand. He lived through the German invasion. Had to stay in hiding while the Nazis rounded up and killed men and raped women and girls.
Anywho, but my definition you do believe in God. If God IS what is good then believing in the right thing, that which is good, is believing in God. The other part is the creator part. So long as you believe that the universe was created you belive in a creator. What creating the universe may be up for debate but certainly the idea that it was created is pretty agreed upon.
-
ROSS
-
Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
Are you saying it's necessarily good to pick up an old woman after she falls down, or saying it's bad to enjoy her struggling?
By what standards?
You could make a case against both of these assumptions. They're by their very essence driven by an irrational code of ethics that puts self-sacrifice above personal interest. That's not to say it is necessarily wrong to help that old woman get up, but in no way can you, without prior consideration, automatically judge a case like this. The consideration is rather simple in its essence, yet more complex in it's outcome: what will you lose and what will you gain by acting 'good'?
Is it worth sacrifising your pleasure (after all, you enjoy watching her struggle and get hurt), just to 'act good' by the standards others put upon you? Bear in mind - if those were your own standards, you wouldn't have enjoyed watching her suffer. Should it be worth sacrifising your enjoyment, for no reason but the thing you just called God, which you only assumed was righteous?
I'm not trying to tell you it would be right to leave that woman on the ground and watch her suffering. To be capable of blindly enjoying the suffering of another, assuming you don't know them, would require a very disturbing and irrational mind frame. That I find just as much despicable as any mystical religious whim.
-
Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
Are you saying it's necessarily good to pick up an old woman after she falls down, or saying it's bad to enjoy her struggling?
By what standards?
You could make a case against both of these assumptions. They're by their very essence driven by an irrational code of ethics that puts self-sacrifice above personal interest. That's not to say it is necessarily wrong to help that old woman get up, but in no way can you, without prior consideration, automatically judge a case like this. The consideration is rather simple in its essence, yet more complex in it's outcome: what will you lose and what will you gain by acting 'good'?
Is it worth sacrifising your pleasure (after all, you enjoy watching her struggle and get hurt), just to 'act good' by the standards others put upon you? Bear in mind - if those were your own standards, you wouldn't have enjoyed watching her suffer. Should it be worth sacrifising your enjoyment, for no reason but the thing you just called God, which you only assumed was righteous?
I'm not trying to tell you it would be right to leave that woman on the ground and watch her suffering. To be capable of blindly enjoying the suffering of another, assuming you don't know them, would require a very disturbing and irrational mind frame. That I find just as much despicable as any mystical religious whim.
i suppose it would depend on if your amount of enjoyment outweighs her amount of discomfort/embarassment.... utilitarians argue that which ever action has the highest sum of happiness.. is the right action, but thats pretty hard to quantify
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Sure Blasphemy is real. What God is exactly is unknown but God is good, meaning what is good is God. The spiritual energy that creates love is what God is. So going against what is right when you know it to be right and choosing to go against it regardless is what blasphemy is. Simply saying something stupid like "Fuck God", or walking around the mall with a T shirt with giant letters printed on that say "Jesus is a Cunt" (I saw it once in tha mall last summer) is not blasphemy, it's just idiocy; dumb kids trying to get attention. Even being upest with God for the rain that destroyed all your crops and coming out while it's raining with a shot gun and shooting the skies in an attempt to wound God or threaten him to keep him from letting more rain fall (I had a great uncle in Greece that did that once) is not blasphemy. It's simply being fucking pissed off, and a little nuts from what I understand. These may be all sins but they are not blasphemy. Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
lol, your great uncle is badass
im down with your definition of blasphemy, though i usually just think of that description as karma.....if you give out positive energy by being a decent person, you'll attract it back, if you put out negative energy by being a cunt, you'll get it back, so in that sense I credit that to the energy of the "Universe" instead of "God"....
people in power just use the term blasphemy as a tool....while maybe the true meaning of the word is ignored, or is given the punishment of burning in eternal hellfire
haha, I could probably talk about this for hours... constantly contradicting myself. Just because noone knows whats out there for sure... thats why I cant say that I believe in God, how can you believe in something you know absolutely nothing about, all you're saying is that you believe that the term "god" exists, and that somehow, whatever it is, created everything around us. Nobody can possibly know what its intentions were, why it did what it did, and what it wants to do/not do. People answer that by saying that they have faith, but then cant describe what it is they have faith in.....faith in god? thats just a circle.
I figure, just be a good person.... be positive, attract positiveness, create meaningful relationships with those around you, be in touch with yourself and the earth, and then you'll either find out what is all about when you die, or you dont, and thats it.
lol, i took this topic about cam'ron and wet farts to a whole 'nother level, so heres a monkey dancing..
:monkey_dance2:
He was crazy from what I understand. He lived through the German invasion. Had to stay in hiding while the Nazis rounded up and killed men and raped women and girls.
Anywho, but my definition you do believe in God. If God IS what is good then believing in the right thing, that which is good, is believing in God. The other part is the creator part. So long as you believe that the universe was created you belive in a creator. What creating the universe may be up for debate but certainly the idea that it was created is pretty agreed upon.
I suppose thats true, by your definition I believe in God... if God is everything that is around us, the energy that is inherent in all things, that which influences and affects every action and reaction... I dont necessarily think it only applies to Positivity, Negative energy is equally as powerful and influential, im not even convinced that being positive is more worthwhile than being negative, i just find it to be the preferable way to live in my circumstances... many people choose the opposite, and whos to say theyre wrong? I guess i just dont believe in aspects of god that many other people do... big bearded white dude condemning us to hell, or rewarding us with heaven... which is why id be reluctant to answer someone who asks "do you believe in god?" unless the clarify what they mean by god
the universe was obviously created, came to be, somehow... we're here arent we? (not really provable, but lets assume).... the thing that throws people is whether it was consciously designed by some sentient type of being, or came out of nothingness (which kind of makes sense, in an abstract sort of way.... you cant divide a number by zero because the answer is nothing, If the laws of physics say that everything has an equal and opposite, whats the opposite of infinity? some sort of extreme nothingness?)
I honestly dont even know if im making sense, haha, i trip myself up and out sometimes, and im not even blunted right now
-
One thang I don't get and I never will get is how somebody can't believe in God. :-\
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Im starting to lean towards that direction, about to stop studying the bible with Jehovah's witness
You're a Jehovah witness?
-
i suppose it would depend on if your amount of enjoyment outweighs her amount of discomfort/embarassment....
What difference would the discomfort or embarrassment of another make to me? Why should it be anyone's concern but her own? If she has relatives or other people caring for her - that's great. But to blindly assume helping is profitable, that's rather ignorant of reality. What should matter is the amount of input and output you yourself get out of being proactive or idle. Will the lady be grateful? Does it weigh up against the effort I'm making to help her? She give me her friendship from then on?
It's not about me giving and her receiving. It's straight economics. I don't buy gifts for strangers, because my money is valuable to me. The same goes (to a lesser extent) to the energy and time I'm spending on helping a lady out.
if God is everything that is around us, the energy that is inherent in all things, that which influences and affects every action and reaction... I dont necessarily think it only applies to Positivity, Negative energy is equally as powerful and influential, im not even convinced that being positive is more worthwhile than being negative, i just find it to be the preferable way to live in my circumstances...
I'm with you as for the power of negative and positive energy being equal, but please do not forget they have different sources. Negative energy 'flows' as a warning sign; it's a signal of failure and death. Positive energy is generated by means of joy and the success of life.
You can choose death if that's what you want -after all, that's what human beings are 'conscious' for- but the consequences of your choice will be yours to undergo.
It's the reason why drug addicts go so low: they choose to force out warning signals (the negative energy). They overrule the symptoms of failure by artificially creating a more pleasurable feeling, but that doesn't alter the reality they live in. Even when they're heading for a concrete wall at full speed, they won't know when to stop. Negative energy would have told them, but they blocked it off. (Mental) death is the result.
many people choose the opposite, and whos to say theyre wrong?
Are you afraid of having an opinion? Of putting people to the test and judging them by your values? Are you even sure about the values you have?
Would you say other people might be right, without reason coming to interfer the process of your gaining knowledge?
Let me quote Nathaniel Branden on this:
“Do mystics declare that all they demand of man is that he sacrifice his happiness? To sacrifice one’s happiness is to sacrifice one’s desires; to sacrifice one’s desires is to sacrifice one’s values; to sacrifice one’s values is to sacrifice one’s judgement; to sacrifice one’s judgement is to sacrifice one’s mind – and it is nothing less than this that the creed of self-sacrifice aims at and demands.”
Source: Branden, N. (1962). Mental Health Versus Mysticism. In: Rand, A. (1965). The Virtue Of Selfishness.
You're a human being. You can't sacrifice your mind and ratio, whilst trying to maintain the integrity of your judgment. You won't know what's good or bad after you've sacrificed your judgment and reason to the uncertainty of someone else perhaps being more right than you, without you knowing it.
One thang I don't get and I never will get is how somebody can't believe in God. :-\
I've got my reasons, QT. Do you? Because I never will understand how people can believe in a god. Peep game, because this is where it gets interesting:
the universe was obviously created, came to be, somehow... we're here arent we? (not really provable, but lets assume).... the thing that throws people is whether it was consciously designed by some sentient type of being, or came out of nothingness
What difference does it make whether someone consciously made the universe or not? I don't think that just because everything in the universe was created, that means the universe itself was created. Does it make a difference when it comes to approaching life? You can only judge by what you know, and not by some assumptions of what else might be. For the sake of philosophy it sure is interesting to theorise about it, but you can't take suggestions for facts.
Centuries ago, people assumed gods were responsible for the happenings in the world, simply because they couldn't find any other explanation for it. Now that great parts of life have been uncovered by science and religion has been proven to conflict with science, there's still people who pray before going to bed at night, hoping that some eternal entity might favour them over His other siblings. Football players don't find their football matches altered by their prayers - they're altered by the flowing of energy. Moving atomic particles, forces influencing each other... It has all been explained. There's no need to believe in God's influence anymore, because rationally reliable proof is here. The question whether or not some God created the universe, that doesn't change anything about life inside the universe. Even if we come to find out some day what's outside of the universe, it won't make a difference to what goes on inside, for as long as we're inside. Universal rules apply.
[The thing that throws people is whether the universe] came out of nothingness (which kind of makes sense, in an abstract sort of way.... you cant divide a number by zero because the answer is nothing, If the laws of physics say that everything has an equal and opposite, whats the opposite of infinity? some sort of extreme nothingness?)
How can you try to look for the opposite of infinity, when infinity itself is a vague concept? Doesn't the fact that there is no possible opposite of infinity mean that infinity itself is a nonexistent concept as well?
You can't define things that have no opposite or nothing to be compared to. You can't conceptualise them. You can't perceive them. In this universe, there is no opposite of infinity, and there is no infinity. The whole thought of infinity is probably some leftover from the era's when mystics reigned over human consciousness.
-
One thang I don't get and I never will get is how somebody can't believe in God. :-\
I've got my reasons, QT. Do you? Because I never will understand how people can believe in a god. Peep game, because this is where it gets interesting:
Nah, I'm not knockin' you, I respect everybody's beliefs, no matter what chu believe.
But what have scientists proved though? They don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist. They tell you we evolved. Why can't they tell you about miracles though? Why can't they explain exorcisms? Why can't they explain spirits and physics? What they got to say about Angel sightings? They can tell you we was monkeys but they can't explain these Powers that God is known to carry. Word up or not??
If I was a catholic I would tell you, ya'll gonna be spending a hot minute in purgatory :D
Lol, I'm just playin'.
-
What's the matter with you? Everyone knows God isn't black.
I am Blackman. I am GOD.
-
I like yo style, B. Killa is the alpha and omega nigga. Bow down!
-
But what have scientists proved though? They don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist.
Oh, so now the burden of proof about the existence of a God is on the scientists? Instead of the fallacy driven mystical religious books (and they say they're metaphorical, just to cover up the holes) blindly being assumed as the absolute truth, ratio is supposed to fight such a blind submission?
There is no way for ratio to overcome faith. Faith is not based on reality or based on facts, so what's logic going to do about that?
They tell you we evolved.
Based on a theory of good old Darwin, against which scientists have found no opposing evidence yet. Millions of scientists are confronted with this issue every day of their work, and the theory still stands strong. In fact, the further science evolves, the more obvious the truth behind Darwin's theory of evolution gets.
Remember that scientists rely on observable facts. What does that tell you?
Why can't they tell you about miracles though? Why can't they explain exorcisms? [...] What they got to say about Angel sightings?
And back to the mystical concept of religion. Since it isn't based on observable reality, the followers of religion are led to believe in things they can't see or witness, and which oppose the laws of nature. The result: some people become so highly affected as to believe in things such as exorcism, angel sightings and the like. Their sense of reality has cut loose from their minds. That's the brain thinking the senses have registered something. In science, that's called hallucinating. It's very much scientifically proved to be true, and it plays a huge role in psychology.
Why can't they explain spirits and physics?
Oh, but wait, that is also explained in psychology (which is also a science based on observable facts). What's left to be logically explained about a concept that's not observable? You only assume there is a duality between the spirit and the physical. What to think of neurological sciences, which provide insight in the activities of the brain concerning emotions, learning capabilities, language, visual insight, the connection between brain parts, the collaborating, et cetera? These have been objects of study for scientists for years. To dispose their observations and rational findings, only because of some unproven concept of a God, that's a crime against your own senses. Are you that lowly?
They can tell you we was monkeys but they can't explain these Powers that God is known to carry. Word up or not??
God isn't known to carry any powers. There are rational explanations for every mystical assumption. Every time we find some new miracle, it's only a matter of time before an explanation follows.
Thunderstorms used to be miracles. Diseases used to be miracles. Man found out the truth, and those miracles became just conditions. We've got cures for illness, yet back in the days illness was ascribed to the work of God.
Now the creation of the earth is a miracle. It's only a matter of time before science uncovers the truth. Until then we'll remain ignorant about it, but the concept of religion should be very clear to you by now.
In other words, no word up from me.
If I was a catholic I would tell you, ya'll gonna be spending a hot minute in purgatory :D
Just because I don't believe in religion, doesn't mean that I'm evil. I live as righteously as I can... By my own laws, my own conclusions about reality. They're not in conflict, as opposed to a religion which tells you to believe or be doomed. Cut down on your senses or sense the pain. But how are you going to experience pain, when you're ignorant of your senses?
Peace, QT! You're a honest dude. Props.
-
;D
And back to the mystical concept of religion. Since it isn't based on observable reality, the followers of religion are led to believe in things they can't see or witness, and which oppose the laws of nature. The result: some people become so highly affected as to believe in things such as exorcism, angel sightings and the like. Their sense of reality has cut loose from their minds. That's the brain thinking the senses have registered something. In science, that's called hallucinating. It's very much scientifically proved to be true, and it plays a huge role in psychology.
Why can't they explain spirits and physics?
Oh, but wait, that is also explained in psychology (which is also a science based on observable facts). What's left to be logically explained about a concept that's not observable? You only assume there is a duality between the spirit and the physical. What to think of neurological sciences, which provide insight in the activities of the brain concerning emotions, learning capabilities, language, visual insight, the connection between brain parts, the collaborating, et cetera? These have been objects of study for scientists for years. To dispose their observations and rational findings, only because of some unproven concept of a God, that's a crime against your own senses. Are you that lowly?
You don't believe in none of those thangs??
In other words, no word up from me.
:laugh:
I understand you got your beliefs, so I'm not tryin' to disrespect that. But you don't even believe in miracles??
All I'ma say is you should listen to some Mahalia Jackson, that'll make you want to believe. ;D Oh, and even Mariah Carey's Christmas album, since it's that time. Which actually what about Christmas time? Do you celebrate that shit?
Sorry homie, I'm not tryin to be disrespectful, I'm just curious.
-
Eleven 2 Three;
I've read through your responses to me and to others and it seems you fail to acknowledge your science is largely based on faith. I admit my faith. I believe letting an old woman struggle and not helping her when she needs it is evil and goes against what is God. I believe that Good To be God. It's a feeling. A system of beliefs. I can't prove it and I don't intend to try because it cannot be done. I believe the good inside everyone is there because of God. I believe that everyone anyone that does not feel the need to help that woman is struggling with evil and needs to get rid of that evil. How exactly one would do that I don't know. How exactly that evil got their I don't know. I just won't allow myself to believe that someone can be born with a set of values that mean allowing a helpless woman to suffer causes pleasure. These are my beliefs about life. Because that is how I feel inside.
You attempt to use psychology as an explanation for certain feelings. Where is there any proof in that science? Science is in large part religion. People see patterns and deduce from those patterns "laws" but any scientific law is only a theory. Newton's laws of physics make sense to us now and they may make sense to us forever. You want to shoot a falling monkey that is on the same plane as you are and you have to aim straight and the bullet will fall with the monkey and strike it. You take air out of the equation any two objects of any mass fall at the same rate. We call it gravity. A magnetic pull that causes the objects, the bullet, the monkey to fall. But a scientific law is definite. And we can't be definite. We cannot predict the future. We do not know that every object from this point on will always fall at the same rate. It sounds stupid I know. I get it a lot. David Humew explained it much better than I and he changed the language of science.
Gravity is a phenomenon that we can have named and observed but you can't see it or test it. We just know that when you let go of something it falls. It's pulled. Do you know for sure that it isn't pushed? Do you know for sure that it isn't an energetic order that decides that this object at this time will fall, but at any other time it could be ordered to not fall. There is no evidence that that will happen, YET. And they yet is the point. We cannot assume that it is impossible for that to ever happen.
Let's say it did happen. All of a sudden certain objects with nothing in particular in common started floating while others did not. Scientists would come up with various theories to explain it even though they wouldn't have any clue because Newton's Laws would cease to exist but they'd make something up and a consensus would occur and majority rule would give us a new theory. Al Gore would blame it Global Warming. But is that really that much more concrete than some yokel claiming it's God's way of punishing us or whatever he'd say? Is it really? Have you seen gravity? Have you touched it? Opened it up inside and tried to figure out how it works?
It's merely a phenomenon that we cannot see so we figure out ways to explain it. We agree on what is the most logical but we can never really figure it out. For someone to convince themselves that it is figured out is foolish. It's not much less foolish to claim to know the earth is warming because fossil fuels are being over used and too much carbon is in the air than it is to say God made it warmer for fun. One may seem more logical but we have no real studies of how the sun works from the inside and we can't say for sure that it's not just the sun going through a warming cycle that will cool in time. Believing in a certain science because it makes the most sense at the time is fine so long as you understand that it is faith in that science. Faith you cannot prove. Presenting that science as concrete fact and teaching it as such to people that don't know any better is no different than teaching about Adam and Eve.
-
Eleven 2 Three;
I've read through your responses to me and to others and it seems you fail to acknowledge your science is largely based on faith. I admit my faith. I believe letting an old woman struggle and not helping her when she needs it is evil and goes against what is God. I believe that Good To be God. It's a feeling. A system of beliefs. I can't prove it and I don't intend to try because it cannot be done. I believe the good inside everyone is there because of God. I believe that everyone anyone that does not feel the need to help that woman is struggling with evil and needs to get rid of that evil. How exactly one would do that I don't know. How exactly that evil got their I don't know. I just won't allow myself to believe that someone can be born with a set of values that mean allowing a helpless woman to suffer causes pleasure. These are my beliefs about life. Because that is how I feel inside.
You attempt to use psychology as an explanation for certain feelings. Where is there any proof in that science? Science is in large part religion. People see patterns and deduce from those patterns "laws" but any scientific law is only a theory. Newton's laws of physics make sense to us now and they may make sense to us forever. You want to shoot a falling monkey that is on the same plane as you are and you have to aim straight and the bullet will fall with the monkey and strike it. You take air out of the equation any two objects of any mass fall at the same rate. We call it gravity. A magnetic pull that causes the objects, the bullet, the monkey to fall. But a scientific law is definite. And we can't be definite. We cannot predict the future. We do not know that every object from this point on will always fall at the same rate. It sounds stupid I know. I get it a lot. David Humew explained it much better than I and he changed the language of science.
Gravity is a phenomenon that we can have named and observed but you can't see it or test it. We just know that when you let go of something it falls. It's pulled. Do you know for sure that it isn't pushed? Do you know for sure that it isn't an energetic order that decides that this object at this time will fall, but at any other time it could be ordered to not fall. There is no evidence that that will happen, YET. And they yet is the point. We cannot assume that it is impossible for that to ever happen.
Let's say it did happen. All of a sudden certain objects with nothing in particular in common started floating while others did not. Scientists would come up with various theories to explain it even though they wouldn't have any clue because Newton's Laws would cease to exist but they'd make something up and a consensus would occur and majority rule would give us a new theory. Al Gore would blame it Global Warming. But is that really that much more concrete than some yokel claiming it's God's way of punishing us or whatever he'd say? Is it really? Have you seen gravity? Have you touched it? Opened it up inside and tried to figure out how it works?
It's merely a phenomenon that we cannot see so we figure out ways to explain it. We agree on what is the most logical but we can never really figure it out. For someone to convince themselves that it is figured out is foolish. It's not much less foolish to claim to know the earth is warming because fossil fuels are being over used and too much carbon is in the air than it is to say God made it warmer for fun. One may seem more logical but we have no real studies of how the sun works from the inside and we can't say for sure that it's not just the sun going through a warming cycle that will cool in time. Believing in a certain science because it makes the most sense at the time is fine so long as you understand that it is faith in that science. Faith you cannot prove. Presenting that science as concrete fact and teaching it as such to people that don't know any better is no different than teaching about Adam and Eve.
what about all those formulas? i dont really get it bcuz arnt those proven laws??
-
Eleven 2 Three;
I've read through your responses to me and to others and it seems you fail to acknowledge your science is largely based on faith. I admit my faith. I believe letting an old woman struggle and not helping her when she needs it is evil and goes against what is God. I believe that Good To be God. It's a feeling. A system of beliefs. I can't prove it and I don't intend to try because it cannot be done. I believe the good inside everyone is there because of God. I believe that everyone anyone that does not feel the need to help that woman is struggling with evil and needs to get rid of that evil. How exactly one would do that I don't know. How exactly that evil got their I don't know. I just won't allow myself to believe that someone can be born with a set of values that mean allowing a helpless woman to suffer causes pleasure. These are my beliefs about life. Because that is how I feel inside.
You attempt to use psychology as an explanation for certain feelings. Where is there any proof in that science? Science is in large part religion. People see patterns and deduce from those patterns "laws" but any scientific law is only a theory. Newton's laws of physics make sense to us now and they may make sense to us forever. You want to shoot a falling monkey that is on the same plane as you are and you have to aim straight and the bullet will fall with the monkey and strike it. You take air out of the equation any two objects of any mass fall at the same rate. We call it gravity. A magnetic pull that causes the objects, the bullet, the monkey to fall. But a scientific law is definite. And we can't be definite. We cannot predict the future. We do not know that every object from this point on will always fall at the same rate. It sounds stupid I know. I get it a lot. David Humew explained it much better than I and he changed the language of science.
Gravity is a phenomenon that we can have named and observed but you can't see it or test it. We just know that when you let go of something it falls. It's pulled. Do you know for sure that it isn't pushed? Do you know for sure that it isn't an energetic order that decides that this object at this time will fall, but at any other time it could be ordered to not fall. There is no evidence that that will happen, YET. And they yet is the point. We cannot assume that it is impossible for that to ever happen.
Let's say it did happen. All of a sudden certain objects with nothing in particular in common started floating while others did not. Scientists would come up with various theories to explain it even though they wouldn't have any clue because Newton's Laws would cease to exist but they'd make something up and a consensus would occur and majority rule would give us a new theory. Al Gore would blame it Global Warming. But is that really that much more concrete than some yokel claiming it's God's way of punishing us or whatever he'd say? Is it really? Have you seen gravity? Have you touched it? Opened it up inside and tried to figure out how it works?
It's merely a phenomenon that we cannot see so we figure out ways to explain it. We agree on what is the most logical but we can never really figure it out. For someone to convince themselves that it is figured out is foolish. It's not much less foolish to claim to know the earth is warming because fossil fuels are being over used and too much carbon is in the air than it is to say God made it warmer for fun. One may seem more logical but we have no real studies of how the sun works from the inside and we can't say for sure that it's not just the sun going through a warming cycle that will cool in time. Believing in a certain science because it makes the most sense at the time is fine so long as you understand that it is faith in that science. Faith you cannot prove. Presenting that science as concrete fact and teaching it as such to people that don't know any better is no different than teaching about Adam and Eve.
what about all those formulas? i dont really get it bcuz arnt those proven laws??
Formulas that work, work. I'm not saying they don't work. I'm saying claiming to know they will always work is false but we cannot know that. How do we know the universe around us won't change and all of a sudden those formulas don't work. There is a reason why nothing is called a law in science any more. David Hume had large debates with the science community a couple hundred years back. Since then everything has been a theory. Science simply cannot predict the future.
-
can u send me a link where he explains this? if u can?
-
One god and his name is ALLAH.
-
Formulas that work, work. I'm not saying they don't work. I'm saying claiming to know they will always work is false but we cannot know that. How do we know the universe around us won't change and all of a sudden those formulas don't work. There is a reason why nothing is called a law in science any more. David Hume had large debates with the science community a couple hundred years back. Since then everything has been a theory. Science simply cannot predict the future.
Please don't bring the great David Hume in to argue in favor of faith and religion. Homie would turn in his grave.
-
Formulas that work, work. I'm not saying they don't work. I'm saying claiming to know they will always work is false but we cannot know that. How do we know the universe around us won't change and all of a sudden those formulas don't work. There is a reason why nothing is called a law in science any more. David Hume had large debates with the science community a couple hundred years back. Since then everything has been a theory. Science simply cannot predict the future.
Please don't bring the great David Hume in to argue in favor of faith and religion. Homie would turn in his grave.
I'm not arguing in favour of my faith or religion. I'm not trying to convince anyome of thinking the way I think. I am trying to eplain to people that much of science is based on faith and religion. Not Christianity or Judaism but Science itself being faith and religion. The big bang is taught in schools as if it is concrete fact. I'm not arguing that God should be taught in science but that science should be taught truthfully. If you can't prove something scientifically it has no place being taught as anything more than a possible theory. Scientists know this. They don't go around knowing that is how the world was created. But students in high schools aren't taught it that way.
Evolution for example is currently the most likely scenario based on what we know with the information we have and the more information we get further helps the evoltion argument but to assume that there is no way new information will arise that gives us another theory is absurd. We cannot predict the future. Shit we can't even be sure of the past. Carbon dating goes haywire once we try studying things over 5000 years old or so. There is so much we don't know. So much that could completely change are way of thinking. To assume we have it right is stupid.
-
Shallow, you talk too much. You can get your hands chopped off for speaking the way you do. Your death will be most unpleasant.
-
Shallow, you talk too much. You can get your hands chopped off for speaking the way you do. Your death will be most unpleasant.
Then who is going to be your inside spy?
-
Shallow, you talk too much. You can get your hands chopped off for speaking the way you do. Your death will be most unpleasant.
Then who is going to be your inside spy?
Someone black, of course.
-
I understand you got your beliefs, so I'm not tryin' to disrespect that. But you don't even believe in miracles??
Why should I believe in something that goes right against all laws of logic? Even if I witnessed a miracle, it's more likely that I would doubt my own sanity before believing what I witnessed is actually true.
All I'ma say is you should listen to some Mahalia Jackson, that'll make you want to believe. ;D Oh, and even Mariah Carey's Christmas album, since it's that time. Which actually what about Christmas time? Do you celebrate that shit?
Sorry homie, I'm not tryin to be disrespectful, I'm just curious.
Just because I'm not religious, doesn't mean I have no beliefs. I believe in a whole lot of stuff. I wouldn't be breathing if I didn't believe. I believe in people. That's also what makes my Christmas enjoyable, so surely I celebrate that by going out for dinner with my special lady, and having a good time with the family, with presents and all.
I don't see any disrespect! In fact, props for being so curious haha
I'll get back to the rest of the replies later, I'm kinda busy right now.
-
I understand you got your beliefs, so I'm not tryin' to disrespect that. But you don't even believe in miracles??
Why should I believe in something that goes right against all laws of logic? Even if I witnessed a miracle, it's more likely that I would doubt my own sanity before believing what I witnessed is actually true.
That's interesting, lol. It's happened before when a blind man, suddenly get's his eyesight back. That's unexplained. And prolly will be forever. You know what I'm sayin'? Like there's no explanation for that shit except by the Grace of God. That's a fuckin' miracle. And you don't believe in those? That's the first time I ever heard that, lol.
All I'ma say is you should listen to some Mahalia Jackson, that'll make you want to believe. ;D Oh, and even Mariah Carey's Christmas album, since it's that time. Which actually what about Christmas time? Do you celebrate that shit?
Sorry homie, I'm not tryin to be disrespectful, I'm just curious.
Just because I'm not religious, doesn't mean I have no beliefs. I believe in a whole lot of stuff. I wouldn't be breathing if I didn't believe. I believe in people. That's also what makes my Christmas enjoyable, so surely I celebrate that by going out for dinner with my special lady, and having a good time with the family, with presents and all.
That's what confuses me though. I don't know.
I don't see any disrespect! In fact, props for being so curious haha
I'll get back to the rest of the replies later, I'm kinda busy right now.
Aight cool, I didn't want you to think I'm tryin' to get all in your personal shit and everythang. Lol.
-
David Hume
" I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
-
David Hume
" I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
I never said he was Jesus. 7even was the one that called him great. I just brought up a debate he had with the science community. The content of one's character has no effect on the man's contributions or arguments. If Isaac Newton was found out to be a pedophile would that change his contribution to science? Hume is either a deep rooted racist or a victim of his times and what he saw. Either way that doesn't change the fact that science cannot study what hasn't happened yet. This all stems from positivism; that only through strict scientific menthod and study can something be considered science. The idea that if something isn't tested over and over again it cannot be true science. My argument takes it a step futher in saying that even the tried, tested, and true can change is the world changes and there is no way in knowing whether the world will change or not.
-
1. You have to put this racist paragraph into timely context. Back when Hume lived that type of thinking wasn't tabu at all.
2. You should not condemn a person because of one issue you heavily disagree with. There's hundreds of texts by him that I can guarantee you would not be nearly as fed up with.
People too often rely on discrediting the person when they can't refute the argument.
-
^ if thats towards me, i just wikipedied the guy, and thought that was interesting, i like his universe of imagination shit, trippy stuff
-
Allah says no.
But all black men are God and Cam Ron is a black man. You hypocrite.
theres no such thing as blasphemy, thats just an old censor on free speech and free thought..... fuck religion, spirituality is whats important
Sure Blasphemy is real. What God is exactly is unknown but God is good, meaning what is good is God. The spiritual energy that creates love is what God is. So going against what is right when you know it to be right and choosing to go against it regardless is what blasphemy is. Simply saying something stupid like "Fuck God", or walking around the mall with a T shirt with giant letters printed on that say "Jesus is a Cunt" (I saw it once in tha mall last summer) is not blasphemy, it's just idiocy; dumb kids trying to get attention. Even being upest with God for the rain that destroyed all your crops and coming out while it's raining with a shot gun and shooting the skies in an attempt to wound God or threaten him to keep him from letting more rain fall (I had a great uncle in Greece that did that once) is not blasphemy. It's simply being fucking pissed off, and a little nuts from what I understand. These may be all sins but they are not blasphemy. Blasphemy is watching an old woman fall right in front of you with no one else and around and watching her struggle to get up and you know you should help but you just stand there and watch because you don't want to help because you want to see her struggle and get hurt. That is going against everything that is right. Everything that is God. That is blasphemy.
say in a life threating situation dont most people that r athiest say help me god anyways?
-
^ LOL, and I bet 'God Bless You' when they sneeze.
-
Eleven 2 Three;
I've read through your responses to me and to others and it seems you fail to acknowledge your science is largely based on faith. I admit my faith. I believe letting an old woman struggle and not helping her when she needs it is evil and goes against what is God. I believe that Good To be God. It's a feeling. A system of beliefs. I can't prove it and I don't intend to try because it cannot be done. I believe the good inside everyone is there because of God. I believe that everyone anyone that does not feel the need to help that woman is struggling with evil and needs to get rid of that evil. How exactly one would do that I don't know. How exactly that evil got their I don't know. I just won't allow myself to believe that someone can be born with a set of values that mean allowing a helpless woman to suffer causes pleasure. These are my beliefs about life. Because that is how I feel inside.
You attempt to use psychology as an explanation for certain feelings. Where is there any proof in that science? Science is in large part religion. People see patterns and deduce from those patterns "laws" but any scientific law is only a theory. Newton's laws of physics make sense to us now and they may make sense to us forever. You want to shoot a falling monkey that is on the same plane as you are and you have to aim straight and the bullet will fall with the monkey and strike it. You take air out of the equation any two objects of any mass fall at the same rate. We call it gravity. A magnetic pull that causes the objects, the bullet, the monkey to fall. But a scientific law is definite. And we can't be definite. We cannot predict the future. We do not know that every object from this point on will always fall at the same rate. It sounds stupid I know. I get it a lot. David Humew explained it much better than I and he changed the language of science.
People aren't born with any set of values. Humans are tabula rasa at the moment of fertilisation (for as far as we know - the truth may be slightly off but not far). Everything after that is part of the development of the person, in the same way a person continues to develop until they die. It's an endless circle of maintaining and creating or healing the body, and likewise developing the brains. That's also when the whole concept of good and bad commences: human beings learn what is good for them and what not, through observation, perception and interpretation. You experience pain and draw the conclusion that the experience was not enjoyable. You look for what caused the pain, and decided that cause is to be avoided. Thus begins the whole learning process of the creation of values.
Human observation (not to even mention perception and interpretation) is far from flawless. I'm well aware of the concepts of epistemology and ontology; make no mistake about me knowing that science isn't definite. It is however the closest approach available to understanding reality. The generally accepted findings of science have proved themselves to be the most accurate approach of reality. The very same thing goes for psychology, which as you put is even more based on assumptions than most other sciences. Falsifiable theories and hypotheses about what might be possible are tested. The ones that aren't rejected remain standing and form the basis of more theories. Just because psychology is a stunningly complex field of science, doesn't mean that everything in it is disposable. Remember that psychology (and its predecessors) have placed the fundaments of everything that mankind is today. If it weren't for psychology, your parents wouldn't have known how to raise you. Behavior and development would have been mysteries. Civilization would have been none. So is it irrational to believe in the approaches of psychology? I think it's the most rational option available. Just because science isn't absolute doesn't mean that it's disposable.
Gravity is a phenomenon that we can have named and observed but you can't see it or test it. We just know that when you let go of something it falls. It's pulled. Do you know for sure that it isn't pushed? Do you know for sure that it isn't an energetic order that decides that this object at this time will fall, but at any other time it could be ordered to not fall. There is no evidence that that will happen, YET. And they yet is the point. We cannot assume that it is impossible for that to ever happen.
Let's say it did happen. All of a sudden certain objects with nothing in particular in common started floating while others did not. Scientists would come up with various theories to explain it even though they wouldn't have any clue because Newton's Laws would cease to exist but they'd make something up and a consensus would occur and majority rule would give us a new theory. Al Gore would blame it Global Warming. But is that really that much more concrete than some yokel claiming it's God's way of punishing us or whatever he'd say? Is it really? Have you seen gravity? Have you touched it? Opened it up inside and tried to figure out how it works?
What's the difference between pushing and pulling? The origins of the energy don't change the effects of the phenomenon. That's what science has proved: the closer you get to the center of the earth (or any grativational object for that matter), the stronger the energy becomes. It has proved to be constant thus far, which doesn't say anything about a possible change in the future, but judging from the way things have developed up until now, there's no change in sight.
Scientifical theories provide you with the insight to provide a prediction of the future. That doesn't mean those predictions will necessarily have to come true. Science is only an approach of reality; it is flawed after all.
Let's say it did happen. All of a sudden certain objects with nothing in particular in common started floating while others did not. Scientists would come up with various theories to explain it even though they wouldn't have any clue because Newton's Laws would cease to exist but they'd make something up and a consensus would occur and majority rule would give us a new theory. Al Gore would blame it Global Warming. But is that really that much more concrete than some yokel claiming it's God's way of punishing us or whatever he'd say? Is it really? Have you seen gravity? Have you touched it? Opened it up inside and tried to figure out how it works?
It's merely a phenomenon that we cannot see so we figure out ways to explain it. We agree on what is the most logical but we can never really figure it out. For someone to convince themselves that it is figured out is foolish. It's not much less foolish to claim to know the earth is warming because fossil fuels are being over used and too much carbon is in the air than it is to say God made it warmer for fun. One may seem more logical but we have no real studies of how the sun works from the inside and we can't say for sure that it's not just the sun going through a warming cycle that will cool in time. Believing in a certain science because it makes the most sense at the time is fine so long as you understand that it is faith in that science. Faith you cannot prove. Presenting that science as concrete fact and teaching it as such to people that don't know any better is no different than teaching about Adam and Eve.
Let's not say it did happen. Let's say monkeys are blue, human beings are immortal, Martians landed in Indonesia the oher day and George W. Bush goes fishing every weekend with his dead grandmother (who was immortal after all?).
We don't know what will happen in the future, but to assume gravity might change its course all of a sudden is simply ridiculous. What use is it to take all those possibilities into account, whilst knowing by reason that the chance of them actually happening is second to none?
Al Gore is not a scientist. He's only a person trying to be noticed by the public, and he's doing a good job at that. You might as well compare him to the 'yokel who claims it's God's way'.
As soon as a theory in science is falsified, the theorists who based their ideas on that original theory, will have to go back to the drawing table and revise their ideas. They'll have to start testing their hypotheses all over again, and probably look for new explanations to be tested. That's all there is to it.
To ascribe phenomena as an act of God has always been the easy way out. "I don't know, maybe God knows. I'm too ignorant and lowly to know. I shouldn't challenge God's ways, as it will lead to nothing." That's a submissive attitude that's far from helping mankind to develop. It's mental suicide. It is to denounce your own thinking and to disqualify the capabilities of mankind on a whole. It's a rejection of everything man has achieved. That's misanthropy at its finest.
-
What pisses me off about Atheists is that they get dumb and disrespectful. I don't disrespect, unless I am first. This prolly doesn't even apply to any of ya'll on this board who don't have in faith in God anyways but here's what I can't stand.
They somehow think they have 'power'. Taking mangers of The Green is unnecessary to THEM. You don't believe in NOTHING, why should you care?? You don't believe than you shouldn't care if it doesn't apply to you. We don't say, 'Atheists you are not allowed to practice atheism', WE DON'T say that, so what gives YOU the right to tell us. You don't believe in God so you just simply ignore, JUST LIKE everythang else in the world. If somebody you don't like shops in the store you work at, you ignore them, you don't ban them and say, 'hey, you can't shop here'! They are taking away OUR rights becuz they don't agree with them. That's wrong! Soon, Christmas music will be banned from playin' in stores becuz they say the word Jesus. Sorry, I apologize, but that pisses me off. I understand you have rights, and we accept that, BUT you are taking away ours, slowly. And I don't accept that.
Taking down The Declaration Of Independence and taking down the Bill Of Rights out of classrooms is fuckin' nonsense niggas. Nonsense! Becuz to them that teaches spirituality?? Get the FUCK outta here! That's our History. That the fuckin' U.S. history. It's gettin' ridiculous.
I hope I'm dead before it get's worse, not even playin'. I don't know what this world is comin' too. You have the right you practice what you want. But guess what? So do we.
I mean are the fuckin' holidays next? I mean really are they? Or is that a nah, BECUZ they celebrate that shit. Christmas is Jesus's Birthday, Easter is when is rose, how do ya'll sit and celebrate that shit after you just threw damn near a tantrum becuz the world believes in God.
Everywhere there's appreciation. The manger is on The Green, right next to the Hanukkah candle light, maybe there's nothing for you, and that's becuz you don't believe in it. So do you see where I'm coming from? They disrespecting me now. They taking away my rights.
Again, this prolly don't apply to ya'll, but you best tell your fellow believers to chill out for a second and think.
-
I never said any of it is disposable. I was trying to establish that a lot of what people consider "science" is based on speculation and faith. I'm not talking about figuring out how to build a car engine that goes as fast as possible with using up the least amount of fuel. I'm talking about the science used to figure out the universe. I used gravity as an extreme example of something that's been the same since as far back as we know and hasn't changed and just wanted to show how little we know about it. So big bangs, and evolution, and global warming aren't even close to with in our realm of knowledge (yet?) but it wouldn't seem that way when you hear them discussed in school or on TV. I was trying to show that this new science that has made its way to the public is a lot like a new religion.
I'd compare it to the old Greek myths. Based on what I've read by the scholars of ancient Greece it didn't seem like any of them prayed to or believed in Zeus or his cohorts. The myths were used as a tool by the wise to explain the unknown but were used as tool by those in power to keep the masses in order. Sacrifice that goat or Hera will curse you with terrible weather and storms. Drive that hybrid and recycle or the earth will curse us with terrible storms. The very first God according to the ancient Greeks was Gaia, the earth, and now a few thousand years later we worship her again. What created Gaia? The chaos; what the greeks called a dark void of nothing the the rest of the world expanded from (sounf familiar?). Jung and others brought forth the idea of archetypes and how every people from all over the world come up with similar basic ideas. Is science our set of archetypes? I don't know.
Sure a lot of science is credible and tested. So was a lot of science in ancient Greece. One scientists measured the circumference of the Earth. One called the milky way a collection of distant stars and expressed the possiility of aliens living on other planets. Those aspects of math and science are pretty similar and so are our "sciences" that try and disprove a God or explain creation; we don't know so we make up.
I'm not trying to prove God, I just don't accept the idea of athiesm. Athiests have a God; it's called Science. Agnostics I understand. Everyone is a bit agnostic at heart. No one really knows, but those that mock religion and turn to science instead are just adhering to another religion. I'm not talking about you, but athiests in general. When Christianity arose many pagans traded in their idea of idols and turned to this one holy creator, and when Science arose publicly in the renaissance many Christians traded in their Holy God for Science.
Most of ancient Greece knew a lot more about the world than most of the renaissance era Europe and even then Greek scholars came to accept Christianity as true. Greeks were among the first converted Christians, long before Rome or the councils. Was this because they saw something that convinced them or because they knew that some things couldn't be explained and the concept of Religion was beneficial to society? I don't know but just like Science is not disposable, neither is Christianity, or Bhuddism, or etc.
P.S. I was comparing Gore to a yokel.
-
You're definately right about how much we don't know. I'll also cosign you on your point about the way science is portrayed in the media and in schools. In fact, I believe that's exactly where lies a huge threat to society. Judging from QT's post, it seems religion is steadily perishing from the public. The new way of looking at science will only further that development. The 'problem' is that science is much more than a collection of facts. People abandon their religion and choose the 'facts' of science, while forgetting about the thought behind it. If you're going to turn your back on God as your ruler and 'shepherd through the valley of darkness,' then who will guide you? Abandoning God leaves an empty hole in the spirit of many men. They think science and atheism teach them something about a lack of purpose and an unlimited freedom that comes from the carelessness it is entwined with. Drugs, alcohol abuse, mindless living, mistreating people, rudeness, egocentricity... A neverending consumer chain, pleasure seeking and hedonism... Science is constantly in search of evidence against the acts of God. It is God's enemy number one. In a way God may be irreplacable though.
I'm seeing it all around me in the hedonistic kingdom The Netherlands have become. Twelve year olds massively give head in exchange for a breezer now, and they think it's great economics. People are getting ruder; tolerance is going down hill; the public morality is gone. As opposed to the U.S.A., the majority of the people have lived without religion for half a century now. The depillarisation and secularisation kicked in early. While everything was okay at first when -even though people didn't go to church anymore- at least the morality still stood strong, the second generation of atheists is about to collapse. They don't have a clue about the reasons why their parents acted as they did back then, and they assume it is natural for man to live without restraints. It is painfully becoming visible exactly why the contribution of religion to a people can't be missed.
In a way, all of this was hard to avoid. The way science is presented to the people makes it seem as if religion has been a bullshit concept from the get-go. That's what they oppose to. There wasn't much to be done against that, knowing that most science already was ahead of society. Society didn't have an alternative, but people did start cutting the strings. The way things are going now, I think as time goes by it'll only become harder to get people back on track. A lot of people believe in nothing now. That's a pretty hopeless situation, which makes the view on further changes sceptical. Even if society collapses tomorrow, people won't know what hit them.
I strongly disagree with you on one point: atheists don't necessarily have an absolute faith in science. If they do, then I'm not one of them. I believe it would be more accurate to put that atheists believe in absolute reason.
Reason does tell me God has no direct influence on earth. Even if He does, it would be so little that praying for Him makes no sense to me.
Reason does tell me science isn't absolute, yet it does provide plausible explanations for phenomena.
Reason does not tell me whether or not God created this earth.
Reason does tell me the posibility of religious concepts being entirely fictive is very real.
Reason does tell me there is an explanation for everything, even though that explanation may be hard to come by.
Reason also tells me the thought of religion as being true, is not entirely ridiculous. We just don't know.
Reason tells me it makes no sense for me to walk around with a bulletproof vest, just because ever since the invention of gun powder it has become possible to get shot and die from it. I can't say I won't get shot down, but I can't let the possibility of that happening reign over my life. I'm not going to spend my money and time on buying a bulletproof vest and walking around in it.
I look at religion in the same way: (probably) ever since man came on this earth, we've been wondering about our existance. Just because it is possible that a God created this us and He now demands our respect and prayers, doesn't mean I'll have to devote my life to that possibility. It's only a suggestive option to me. Science does provide me with a whole gang of alternative explanations for the phenomena religious people tend to ascribe to God. These explanations seem far more reasonable to me. Yes, reason tells me. That is my state of mind as an atheist.
P.S. I was comparing Gore to a yokel.
That just went totally over my head... +2 lol
-
If you believe in the possibility of God are you an athiest? I see athiests that see no God like devout catholics see God. A no doubt about it. Admitting you don't know how the world was createed and not believing in any one explanation makes me call you an agnostic.
I wasn't really trying to tie in morality with religion. I'm not so sure that with out organized religion we wouldn't have a moral society. Remember I do believe that the holy spirit resides in all of us and the concept of what is good is present in everyone. You can argue that we learn it from being taught it. I argue that we learn it naturally. There has never been any significant tests on human growing up in the wild to support either claim. And I think we can both agree that to conduct such studies would be wrong. So we may never get to the bottom of that one.
Some things in my opinion don't have any reason. Why are we born? We do we exist. Why do we need oxygen to live? Why does gravity keep us grounded on the Earth and keep us from flying into the unviverse? Does reason answer any of that? Can it? Can Science? And whys can never be answered. I'm not saying that the bible answers them. I just don't think about the whys because I'm confident we can't figure them out. We're here. We can figure out how to make here easier to cope with but we can never figure out why we're here, not with any science I've seen yet anyway.
I was raised with a religion that suits me and I choose to believe what I've been taught and what I've concluded myself. I guess in the end I don't want to believe that we just live for 80 or so years and die and that's it. I want to believe that there is something bigger, more premanent for us. Wishful thinking maybe but I have to believe in a spiritual connection and spiritual existence.
-
If you believe in the possibility of God are you an athiest? I see athiests that see no God like devout catholics see God. A no doubt about it. Admitting you don't know how the world was createed and not believing in any one explanation makes me call you an agnostic.
Remember I do believe humans will figure it out one day, just by calculating (which in its turn is based on observations). I hardly believe anything written in the bible, and the probability of the existance of a god is very low to me. There is nothing which points me in the direction of the existance of any higher power. I don't know if that really classifies as agnostic...
I wasn't really trying to tie in morality with religion. I'm not so sure that with out organized religion we wouldn't have a moral society.
I'm not saying it's impossible to have a moral society without religion, but the switch from conservative Christianity to atheist 'liberty' went too quickly without having anything to replace the old morality. Bringing back morality, that's exactly what attracts me to this field of science.
Remember I do believe that the holy spirit resides in all of us and the concept of what is good is present in everyone. You can argue that we learn it from being taught it. I argue that we learn it naturally. There has never been any significant tests on human growing up in the wild to support either claim. And I think we can both agree that to conduct such studies would be wrong. So we may never get to the bottom of that one.
About two centuries of work of social scientists has just been redirected to the trash bin. Poor Emile Durkheim would turn in his grave if he read what you said there. There has been so much effort put into understanding the human learning process that it isn't necessary to experiment with humans raised in the wild. In today's world there's millions of children being neglected by their parents. The outcome is only too obvious - those that aren't taught the difference between good and bad, end up as anti-social beings. They simply never learned to interact with others. Or what about those who are taught the wrong morals? Kids who grow up in poor neighborhoods, hanging around the wrong friends, becoming criminals... How do you explain all of that, when the holy spirit is supposed to tell us good from bad? Me personally, I'd rather believe in theories of social cohesion and behaviourism...
Some things in my opinion don't have any reason. Why are we born? We do we exist. Why do we need oxygen to live? Why does gravity keep us grounded on the Earth and keep us from flying into the unviverse? Does reason answer any of that? Can it? Can Science? And whys can never be answered. I'm not saying that the bible answers them. I just don't think about the whys because I'm confident we can't figure them out. We're here. We can figure out how to make here easier to cope with but we can never figure out why we're here, not with any science I've seen yet anyway.
What makes you think there's an answer for every "why"? What makes you think everything has a specified purpose? Is that because God supposedly made life on earth perfect? You get what I mean. If God's creation were perfect, Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten that apple. War, homosexuality and atheism would've been nonexistent. The fact that there's so many unexplained "why's" can tell you two things.
* Not everything in life has a purpose. Not every "why" question has a fitting answer. However, every "how" does.
* God does exist and His ways are above ours. What's a "why" to us, is evident to Him.
You already know why I'm going for the first option.
I was raised with a religion that suits me and I choose to believe what I've been taught and what I've concluded myself. I guess in the end I don't want to believe that we just live for 80 or so years and die and that's it. I want to believe that there is something bigger, more premanent for us. Wishful thinking maybe but I have to believe in a spiritual connection and spiritual existence.
I know people see certain unexplained things as an act of God, and to them these things justify their faith in Him. But just how does one believe in the afterlife? Religions contradict each other when it comes to issues of life and death, and there is no proof of any afterlife (is there?). Where does all the blind faith come from?
-
Agnosticism - is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
A cathloic is someone tat says for certain there is a God. An athiest is someone that says for certain there isn't one. An agnostic just admits to not knowing or not being able to know.
All those social studies are done with outside negative influences. I think people can be raised bad and learn to agree with what is wrong. I just don't think it naturally takes them over. The studies of kids with out parents and what not don't account for that.
Where you lean on the why wasn't the issue. Where I lean wasn't the issue. I don't think the whys will ever get answered by us. We'll either find out when we die or we'll just die.
The faith comes from desire. I want to live forever and keep going. And so do most people. They don't like the idea of their children dying young or disease taking people out of life early. Or it comes from people that have seen the unseen and passed it on down to their children. I guess which side you'd lean towards.
-
^ From all your posts I take it you read "The God Delusion" inside out?
-
^ From all your posts I take it you read "The God Delusion" inside out?
Never read it.
Who keeps propping me? I've never gotten to 100 before. Thanks.
-
I don't agree with everything in it. It's a good title nonetheless and not as biased as the title seems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
After reading it a few times I got hold of a .pdf version, I'll send it if you want to read it.
-
Who keeps propping me? I've never gotten to 100 before. Thanks.
I'm sorry, LOL. It's a tendency I have for people who enter a discussion with me :D
-
Who keeps propping me? I've never gotten to 100 before. Thanks.
I'm sorry, LOL. It's a tendency I have for people who enter a discussion with me :D
I don't mind. It was just nice to see 3 digits for the first time. Here's a prop for you.