Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on July 07, 2004, 10:05:57 pm
-
read this article....what do you mean why? Cause the Bible prophesizes it, thats why.
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p15s01-lire.html
-
"The Christian Science Monitor"
hmmm, this should to be interesting.
[Bible college :lol:]
-
Despite the name, I have yet to encounter any fanatical, fundamentalist or slanted views from them. Contrary to popular belief, not all American Christians are right-wing. Just thought I'de clear that up, it was bound to come up sooner or later.
edit: they're actually among the least biased news websites that I know of.
-
:(
It doesn't have to be now... why do they wan't it?
It's all happening isn't it...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
[Bible college :lol:]
I didn't read the whole article, but did I miss something? What's so laughable about Bible college?
-
Church and state have been separated for a while. French Revolution for starters...
-
a college were you go to study the Bible, it just strikes me as funny.
anyway, yes the reason the evangelists are suporting Israel is becase they think there bringing about the end of the world, and all us nasty atheists and non-christians will be anialated by the power of God. well good luck with that.
just becase some nutty groupe suports something doesn't mean that it's wrong, though.
there are plenty of nuts saying we should pull all suport for the "evil jew race" and let them all die a horable death. who here agrees with them, that we should pull all suport for Israel? probly a few.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
anyway, yes the reason the evangelists are suporting Israel is becase they think there bringing about the end of the world,
Okay, I'm not all up on this religious stuff since I became an Egoist (I am God), but in what way is bringing about the end of the world a good thing? I don't know about you, but even if I was a crazy fundamentalist nut, I sure as hell wouldn't want to force the final judgement. All that armeggedon stuff in the Bible isn't exactly my idea of a good time, even if it promisies a great ending. It's like playing through a really ****ty game because there might be a cool cutscene, it ain't worth it I tell ya!
Worse yet, they're seem to be trying to force God to end the world. Do any of them think that's even a remotely smart or even possible thing to do? If God (moi) doesn't want the damn world to end, then it damn well won't, no matter what a bunch of Bible humping lu lus say. On top of that, I think anyone who tried to force it would end up on the wrong end of Revelations simply for pissing God (yours truly) off.
Am I the only one thinking this? Or am I just not up on the whole end of the world thing?
-
The entire US supports Isreal and its policies. It strongly advises against a few decisions but in the end isreal always gets what it wants. Palestinians dont, they continue to lose land and freedoms daily due to Jewish actions. Does anyone care or stop these atrocities? No of course not.
Isreal is protected by America on the grandest of scales. Isreal and the US are aligned against all arabas in the middle east which makes Isreal and the US the best of friends.
So to say their is no support for isreal or no support for their race is absurd and misinformed. The jews have been fed with a silver spoon since world war 2 and everytime they want more its given to them or they simply take it.
Do we ever hear about Isreali Suicide bombers? No. Do they exist. Im sure they do, to think only one side is as fanatical as they are and the other isnt is again ignorant of the real situation.
Fact is Palestinians and Isrealites have been wronged each other for over 50 decades, however, isreal is funded and supported by western nations and palestine is not. America is a zionistic nation on the verge of bringing about our third world war and the fact people cant see this plain as day, when we have a prophetic guide such as the bible to let us know what will happen before it happens is insanity and extremely close-minded.
Open yoursle to reading it for a few days and see for yourself what the truth is. It can be any bible you want, as all can be read and you can drawyour own conclusions. After all the only way you will really know is if you research and find out. Otherwise your just talking out your you-know-what.
So do i think Isreal is in cohoots with the US? Yes
Do i think Isreal holds power in the senate? Yes, facts actually point to this being real.
Do i think the US is secretly trying to bring about an apocolyptic end? Yes, but not by its own will but by the will of its leaders who are extremist in the catholic sense.
Do i think the bible is right in its prophecies? It hasnt been even close to being wrong in the over 2000 years it existed, and more and more evidence points to the bible being historically correct, so yea i think the bible is right in its prophecies. Deep down i think it sucks we are subjected to this irony we call life, however to ignore the fact their is a greater being is downright stupid and ignorant two things i am not.
Deep down we all know the truth, whether we accept or mock it is what decides your fate. Funny thing is most people dont know it, or simply dont care either way im playing it safe.
-
they think it's there job to fufill the -proficy or something, that they arn't forceing God's hand, but that god wants them to do it. and from what I recall, they are all in this opiate haze of how wonderful the end of the world is gona be, there all gona disapear off of the face of the earth and all the heathens are gona get burned to ash.. or something, and then they get to come back and play in the ashes... or something... . I heard Pat Roberts (I think) saying that the glorius end times are at hand, that was a few years ago. these folks do truely beleive this crap, and it is worriing how much influence they seem to have, fortunately I think the polititions are just useing these people to get there vote block.
-
It is relevant because these guys, fundamentalist Christian Zionists, are a large part of the reason why the US has and continues to support Israel despite criminal actions on their part. Its religion meddling in politics, and its hurting a hell of a lot of people.
Let me ask you, if the US were to drop all support for Israel, what do you think would happen? Another attack by the neighboring nations is not at all likely. What would probably happen is that Israel would be forced to negotiate, which is good, since they wouldn't have Uncle Sam at their backs. They would be be forced to the same standard that every other nation on Earth (US excluded) obeys, which is that they would not be able to do as they please without consequences.
Also worthy to note is that these views, by Christian Zionists, are not even accepted by most Israelis. Its easy to talk about the End Times when you don't have bombs going off in your neighborhood. When even the people for who's benefit you are allegedly working are against you, that says a little something doesn't it? I think Sandie can back this up. Without ackowledging that Palestiians have a right to homeland, free from Israeli occupation, there can be no peace. that much is clear. But when these guys are in favour of Greater Israel, based on Bible prophecy, and when they have the amount of influecne that they do, the whole peace process goes right out the window. And that gets people on both sides killed, and will continue to do so.
To clarify, I'm not attacking Christianity, far from it, who I am against is a small (well, not that small actually) group of fundamentalists, Bush and Ashcroft among them, who mixing prohecy and politics, with disastrous results. This was never intended as a debate on religion itself, just this specific group.
and BTW, I don't see anything funny about Bible camp. Theology is a wide and interesting area of study, its not quite so simple as most people think. I'ver got a book sitting on my shelf right now caled The Essence of Judaism, and its actually an interesting read, though its really tough going, due to the complexity of the subject.
-
If the US dropped support for Isreal the bible would be wrong.
What is the odds of that happening? Im guessing its slim to none (bible being wrong or US dropping Isreali support).
Id love to see it myself, if only to show Isreal it is not as powerful as it thinks its is, however it is as powerful as it thinks it is and is using that power admirably.
Ultimately for this to change it would take some time, and i beleive time is working against us. Once someone has control, they dont let go willingly and its my guess no matter what the US people want, the leadership will always do whats best for itself and shadow it with the excuse that its important for their freedom as usual. Again if it was repaired we may also be looking at the new leadership becoming worse. Ideally i think we just cant rule ourselves as its states in the bible, because as individuals we cannot be selfless enough to ensure the people are happy and ultimately we go in vicious cycles as we have been doing now for over 2000 years.
By the way im an Agnostic and am of no religious denomination. Anything i may beleive in is based on my own personal quest to find out who God is and where these stories come from but i also beleive we can never really know the entire truth of Gods word as this was his intentions from the beginning. Ignorance is tolerable to me because it was meant to be.
-
Lonestar: so you do believe that we are living in the End Tmes and all the rest? Or am I just misunderstanding you? Or are you just being very pessiimistic?
but one thing I don't agree with is you claim that the entire US supports Israel (and all the negative connotations). First of all, supprting Israel is not in and of itself a bad thing. It doesn't actually mean anything. I may or may not support Israel, or any other nation, depending on what it does. I think that peope who support Irsael unconditionally are a majority, but there are significant pockets of dissent within the US. The average joe, I think, is either too ignorant to have a real opinion, or just doesn't care.
-
Now where have I heard of this prophecy before?
Hmm...Oh right. Triple by Ken Follet. That's why the Egyptian dude works for the Mossad...because he thinks he's helping to fulfill the prophecy.
Oh you people...;)
-
Wheres Sandwich for this one? Nice to get a Christian Zionist living in Jerusalem's view on this.
Btw, csm is prettyy good and unbiased.
-
The reason he found it funny Steak is that most people consider college a place of academic education and achievement, where scientific methods are employed in learning, evaluation and definition of the world around us.
note: I put the "most people consider" part in to avoid any arguments about the definition of colleges remits et al.
-
Simple answer there is no "seperation of Church and State"....at least in the sense most ppl push it as.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-
Did you even look at what you Quoted? Read the first part of that again.
-
In fact, what these people are doing is protected by the seperation of Church and State, in one aspect at least. Ironic, I know.
You could take the position that the government shall make no laws regarding religion, which includes limiting or inhibiting it. That would give these groups protection. But another way of looking at it is that religion should play no part in governance, including foreign policy. That would limit or take away completely the power of lobby groups with religious ties, including these.
Personally, I favour the latter. I find it absurd that certain groups, including fundamentalist Christian and Zionist, can lobby the government to take up their agenda. Muslim lobbies are included equally in this, but lets be honest, no one listens to then, they have no power at all.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Simple answer there is no "seperation of Church and State"....at least in the sense most ppl push it as.
must I argue this with unqualified laymen who want to impose their religion on everyone else for the millionth time?
That very clearly sets out the "seperation of church and state" - the termology we use to describe it was coined by jefferson to describe it's function.
Some of the founding fathers were christian [and then split into different types], some deists, some atheists, however they ALL AGREED that the Seperation of Church and State was critical - and thus the 1st Ammendment to the US Constitution prohibits creating any law respecting an establishment of religion - whih means making money with "in god we trust" on it violates the constitutional mandate, having the pledge have "under god" in it violates the constitutional mandate. Both of these unconstitutional changes occured in 1954 in reaction to the red scare, and their continuance of evidence of the infiltration of our government by antidisestablishmentarianist and the beginning of the death of american democracy unless we can systematically and totally remove the antidisestablishmentarianists from our government and from all influence upon our government.
The Current Administration is the single worst administration when it comes to being antidisestablishmentarianistic - they are all fundamentalist christian apocolyptic postmillenialists who want nothing more than money and power. They have blatantly and repeatedly violated the constitution - they seem to enjoy using it as toilet paper. Now they are announcing vague, unconfirmed threats to the elections in november from Al Qaeda, at best that is an attempt to manipulate the elections, at worst (and i have grown to expect the worst-case-scenario as the norm from bush) it's a prelude to "postponing" the election due to security threats.
Call me a tinfoilhat-wearing crazy for the last part if you want to, but we will be in a world of hurt if i am right!
-
As an aside, and I don't mean to divert the discussion to this; does anyone really doubt that the American government would , if it were so inclined,be able to produce a terrorist attack? Or, more plaudisibly, just let it happen? Mossad was watching the 9/11 hijackers day and night, for several months. They were literally in the motel room beside them.
Right now, the situation is something along the lines of:
Attack=Bush wins. No attack=Bush loses.
edit: you really love saying antidisestablishmentarianists, don't you Kaz? And the word of the day is: obscufate.
-
tinfoil hattist scores some points: http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
rictor: no the word of the day is antidisestablishmentarianists, the word of the day tommorow is obfuscate :D
for those of you who don't know what the big anti-word means: those who wish to combine church and state power
it's the longest word in the english language :D
-
Meh, we ARE living in the End Times, we're making sure of that. How can people try to get us to nuke ourselves off the planet, and then claim it's God's work.
Quite frankly, if God is like that he can **** right off, and if he does exist and comes to me to judge me, I'll kick the bastard in the nuts!
-
Once again Bill Hicks was on about this one years ago.
That's another good thing about Bush being gone, man, cos for the last 12 years with Reagan and Bush, we have had fundamentalist Christians in the White House. Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the exact word of God, including that wacky fire and brimstone Revelations ending, have had their finger on the ****ing button for 12 years. [Eyes roll back in head] "Tell me when Lord, tell me when. Let me be your servant Lord."
-
Originally quoted by HotSnoJ
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
:lol:
-
LOL That about sums it up.
I abhore terrorism, but after reading something like that, I can almost understand the urge to arm yourself with an Uzi, walk up to one of these jerks and give them your opinion in one staccato sentence :(
-
Ignorance is bliss. Sometimes, i wonder if life would be better if one just drifted into the masses and forgot all the bizzare politics of the world.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
for those of you who don't know what the big anti-word means: those who wish to combine church and state power
it's the longest word in the english language :D
I see your antidisestablishmentarianists
and raise you a pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis%20)
and a
floccinaucinihilipilification (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=floccinaucinihilipilification) - which is probably most appropriate meaning of a word ever :D
-
Probably not, I don't think they really care if people slag them off anyway, they're entrenched now.
Remember, governments don't seek what is best for their people, they seek just enough to stop them complaining. The rest they keep for themselves ;)
And yes, I'm in a foul mood tonight :D
-
aldo: they excluse medical terminology because it's technically latin
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis%20)
Ironically many people in the lab worked (somewhat carelessly) with silica gel and I worry about contracting that condition.
Mostly cause it's a hideous lung disease but also cause I'd never be able to pronouce it :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Ironically many people in the lab worked (somewhat carelessly) with silica gel and I worry about contracting that condition.
Mostly cause it's a hideous lung disease but also cause I'd never be able to pronouce it :D
I feel sorry for the poor sod who has to write up the charts.......
-
One dictionary says it does exist, the other one says it doesn't.
Dontcha just love the Internet? ;)
-
USE GOOGLE AS YOUR DICTIONARY! GOOGLE IS FATHER, GOOGLE IS MOTHER! GOOGLE IS ALL! GOOGLE KNOWS ALL!
:p:D:p
*runs*
-
:sigh:
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/l/longestword.html
-
http://www.tribulation.com/
Just to read up on what these people actually believe.
-
pfft. I would have taken them more seriously if they had a count-down or something. That way at least, you know that either they're going to be saved, or they're all going to drink poison Koolaid. This just shows a lack of commitment on their part. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Tiara: blasphemy! The Corps is mother, the Corps is father! Google is a false prohphet. Repent sinners, repent!
-
Gank!! Arrrrrgh! Death by MIDI! ;)
-
Trust the Corps
-
Originally posted by Kazan
That very clearly sets out the "seperation of church and state" - the termology we use to describe it was coined by jefferson to describe it's function.
I'm afraid that once again Kaz, you have let your utter hatred for any kind of religion cloud your mind.
The first ammendment was brought about in response to the fear that the Federal Government would/could pass a law that would establish a single sect(Catholicism, Puritanism, ect) to be the "Official Religion of the Nation" and force all citizens of the nation to adhere to said sect. This was a palatable fear as most of the country was from England where they were forced to be Anglicans even if they didn't agree with the teachings.
The only time Jefferson referenced "a wall of separation between Church and State" was in one of the Federalist Papers, specifically written to a women's group who were concerned that a State Religion would be established.
Basically, the 1st Amendment prevents the Feds from messing with religion, not the other way around.
Don't misunderstand, I firmly believe that a government MUST be secular. But religion shouldn't be used as a test for anything. When it comes to making policy decisions or judgements, religion should as much a non-issue as race should be. At the same time though, when a leader(such as the President) speaks about how he prays for guidance, you shouldn't berate him for what you perceive to be a weakness.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Basically, the 1st Amendment prevents the Feds from messing with religion, not the other way around.
A rather silly arguement. As soon as one religion started messing with the Feds there would be a knock on effect of the Feds messing with other religions.
Originally posted by Liberator
Don't misunderstand, I firmly believe that a government MUST be secular. But religion shouldn't be used as a test for anything. When it comes to making policy decisions or judgements, religion should as much a non-issue as race should be. At the same time though, when a leader(such as the President) speaks about how he prays for guidance, you shouldn't berate him for what you perceive to be a weakness.
So in that case you're for allowing gay marriages? After all the only arguement against them is a religious one.
-
if Bush prayed and kept his religion out of our government I wouldn't care
it's my not "Hatred of religion" - it's the facts jack
A great many of the founding fathers were deists, some [very famous ones] were atheists -- they all recognized that the state and religion should not mix
-
Originally posted by Rictor
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p15s01-lire.html
Hey! That's Ray in that picture! And they quote Malcom, too. Too funny! Reading an article referenced from HLP about people I know. :lol:
Originally posted by Bobboau
they think it's there job to fufill the -proficy or something, that they arn't forceing God's hand, but that god wants them to do it. and from what I recall, they are all in this opiate haze of how wonderful the end of the world is gona be, there all gona disapear off of the face of the earth and all the heathens are gona get burned to ash.. or something, and then they get to come back and play in the ashes... or something... . I heard Pat Roberts (I think) saying that the glorius end times are at hand, that was a few years ago. these folks do truely beleive this crap, and it is worriing how much influence they seem to have, fortunately I think the polititions are just useing these people to get there vote block.
Actually, the "Fun-Filled End Times" is a widespread misunderstanding among Christians. First of all, Jesus states quite clearly that the rapture will come after the tribulation, not before. Secondly, if you want to read about wrath and destruction and death, read Revelations. When Jesus comes back, it ain't gonna be pretty.
Originally posted by Rictor
Also worthy to note is that these views, by Christian Zionists, are not even accepted by most Israelis. Its easy to talk about the End Times when you don't have bombs going off in your neighborhood. When even the people for who's benefit you are allegedly working are against you, that says a little something doesn't it? I think Sandie can back this up. Without ackowledging that Palestiians have a right to homeland, free from Israeli occupation, there can be no peace. that much is clear. But when these guys are in favour of Greater Israel, based on Bible prophecy, and when they have the amount of influecne that they do, the whole peace process goes right out the window.
The Palestinians have every right to a homeland, free of Israeli occupation. Just not on Israeli soil.
But unfortunately, I truly do not think that even the Palestinians getting 101% of what they want will bring peace. I don't think that a lasting peace between the Jews and the Muslims is humanly possible.
Originally posted by Gank
Wheres Sandwich for this one? Nice to get a Christian Zionist living in Jerusalem's view on this.
I know both Ray Sanders and Malcom Hedding personally - they're both great examples of Christian Zionists. I'm what I guess you'd call a Messianic Jew, which - belief-wise - amounts to the same exact thing. The only difference is that I have Jewish ancestry - whoop-dee-doo. ;)
-
You know, what would be funny is if all of this was, true but not in a manner that was recognizable by the fundies.
Like say... the rapture is actually a bunch of people sick and tired of earth and they decide to leave the planet. ;)
-
Hmmmm... I'd sign for that ;)
-
Perhaps a reminder should suffice. After all, without Abraham and Agar (or Hagar, whatever is written) there wouldn't have been an Ishmael :)
Christian Zionists.. Sounds to me that some Christians want to return to Israel? If so, I hope it doesn't start another war. The last thing we need is that the christians want to retake "Jesus' homeland" :D
As for the state-church separation, it is obvious why they should be separate. The bible is no longer the book you look for advice as it does not give you an accurate information on anything. It was a guide, yes. But is not updated.
Besides all that, does anyone know how the countdown goes? :p
-
Did someone say countdown? http://www.exodus2006.com/Clock.htm
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Gank!! Arrrrrgh! Death by MIDI! ;)
Sorry, never noticed, speakers are bust.
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Palestinians have every right to a homeland, free of Israeli occupation. Just not on Israeli soil.
LOL, 60 years ago the jews had less right to a homeland, and no right to one on Palestinian soil. It amazes me how fundamental christians can completely ignore the beliefs they claim to uphold when it suits them.
Originally posted by Ace
You know, what would be funny is if all of this was, true but not in a manner that was recognizable by the fundies.
Like say if the palestinians were Gods chosen people?
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Did someone say countdown? http://www.exodus2006.com/Clock.htm
:lol:
9th of Ab 5766???!!! Fascinating. That date never had occured to me ...
-
Sandwich, let me ask you this. You say that the Palestinians have the right to a homeland, and I'm glad you think think, but the question then is, what is Israeli land?
If we go by what was actually bought by Israel prior to 1948, then that is about 4% of modern-day Israel, if I remember correctly.
What I want to know is by what authority Israel holds the land it is currently on. Please don't misinterpret this as an attack on the concept of a Jewish homeland, I believe that Israel has a right to exist, but the question is where and how. As far as I know, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, most of the land currenty held by Israel was simply given to it by the United Nations in 1948. However, the UN does not have the authority to take assests (land, money, property etc) from Group A, in this case the Palestinian inhabitants, to give it to Group B, Jewish Zionists. Stealing from Peter to give to Paul, so to speak.
edit: Why do you think that there can never be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. After 1500 years of constant, bloody war, the various European nations are getting along just fine with another. 20 years ago, how many people thought the Cold War could end peacefully? All conflicts come to and end, and hopefully, in a peaceful manner. I think that the odds of a conflict, any conflict, coming to a peaceful resolution are greater now then they ever were. Total war, the kind that would be required to wipe out your opponents, is just less acceptable than before. And long periods of subjugation are also growing very unpopular.
I think that saying never is just wrong. There is no logical reason why peace is not attainable. Its a pretty defeatist attitude, dont you think?
-
It's what the Bible Code says, enteresting... But most likely crap, they can't predict the future
-
You know, the only fair way to distribute the Holy Land is to declare it No Man's Land and not let anybody live there. Just redistrict the whole area and five the Israelis a place and give the Palestinians a place, just outside what is considered the "Holy Land" and only allow people in for worship or educational/archaeolgical purposes and do not allow weapons of any kind save those of the "guards" which should be a multinational force established outside of national lines, they would no longer be American or French or Iraqi or whatever the hell else for the extent of their service in guarding the Holy Land. Also, no one should be allowed in at night and any found is contravention of the posted(in all applicable languages as large as possible at every check point) rules will be subject to arrest and immediate ejection and banishment from the Holy Land.
That is the only fair way.
-
I don't necessarily think that you have to declare the whole area off limits for inhabitants, nor do I think that anyone has the authority to do so. But I do agree that certain disputed places, such as Jerusalem, should be declared international areas, which means that they are not the sole posession of any one nation. It seems to me the best way to solve the conflict. Or, if both sides agree, parition the land (reffering specifically to Jerusalem, but also in general) into national sections.
-
In a sense I agree with Liberator on this. But I'd also make an extention to include territories such as Tibet (being the holy land of the Bhuddist faith) as neutral areas for educational/pilgrimmage/archaeoligcal purposes.
-
Ace: I don't anyone is actually trying to claim Tibet except the people who have lived there for like ever. China just invaded becasue they were afraid the deeply religious beliefs might destablizie Communism. China isn't saying "this is our Holy Land", they doing it for purely political means, and since its as clear as day that their occupation doesn't have a shred of legitimacy, I'm in favour of just kicking them out. But its not like anyone is really willing to stand up to China, even if they could, which few countries can.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What I want to know is by what authority Israel holds the land it is currently on. Please don't misinterpret this as an attack on the concept of a Jewish homeland, I believe that Israel has a right to exist, but the question is where and how. As far as I know, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, most of the land currenty held by Israel was simply given to it by the United Nations in 1948. However, the UN does not have the authority to take assests (land, money, property etc) from Group A, in this case the Palestinian inhabitants, to give it to Group B, Jewish Zionists. Stealing from Peter to give to Paul, so to speak.
IIRC alot of inhabitants on the land left when the Jews started going back. Don't quote me on that, because I really don't know for sure.
*waits for sand's reply*
-
This site seems to be an unbiased storehouse of information, perhaps it will answer your questions about the history of the area:
Palestine Facts (http://www.palestinefacts.org/)
Originally posted by Rictor
Why do you think that there can never be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I didn't say that, did I? I said:
[q]I don't think that a lasting peace between the Jews and the Muslims is humanly possible.[/q]
This is completely connected with my faith, and the Biblical statements concerning the two people groups. They have yet to be proven wrong.
Now, Jews !== Israelis, and Palestinians !== Muslims. Yes, those associations represent majorities, but let's be as accurate as we can be (without being anal about it :p).
Bottom line, and this must be understood, is that Israel - as the Jewish State - existing on the same territory the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah held 3000+ years ago, holding off attack after attack by the Muslim Jihad-wagers surrounding her, is an affront to Allah and to Islam. We are an offense by merely existing; ala "The God of Israel is stronger than the God of Islam." Make no mistake - this conflict cannot be explained merely politically. It is deeply rooted in religion.
Jews and Arabs have lived together peacefully many times in the past, and continue to do so today - believe it or not. I was just at an Arab / Bedouin tent all afternoon, eating and playing a board game with friends.
But there will always be a conflict between Islam and Judaism (and, dare I say it, Christianity). Heck, I'll even toss in a bit of Biblical prophecy in here to stir things up. According to the book of Revelations (and Daniel, IIRC), there will be 3.5 years of peace in the middle east, brought on by the anti-christ. But that's all it will last. Now, I don't expect any of you to agree or believe this, but we shall see what the future holds.
-
hey, wasn't there about three and a half years of relitive calm thanks the Clinton...
AHHH!!! tEh eND TImEzZZZ aRE UpoN uZ!!!! oH teH GNoEwZ!11!!11
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
This site seems to be an unbiased storehouse of information, perhaps it will answer your questions about the history of the area:
Palestine Facts (http://www.palestinefacts.org/)
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq.php
Palestine Facts is a project of the Jewish Internet Association.
http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/
Unbiased alright :rolleyes: Do you ever check your facts before you post?
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bottom line, and this must be understood, is that Israel - as the Jewish State - existing on the same territory the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah held 3000+ years ago, holding off attack after attack by the Muslim Jihad-wagers surrounding her, is an affront to Allah and to Islam. We are an offense by merely existing; ala "The God of Israel is stronger than the God of Islam." Make no mistake - this conflict cannot be explained merely politically. It is deeply rooted in religion.
Incorrect, Muslims are not concerned that your god is stronger than theres, because most jews, christians and muslims accept that they all worship the same God, they are pissed because you are an outsider to the region who is coming in and stealing land. You can put whatever religious spin on it suits your beliefs, but that is what the conflict is really about. Btw, Israel has only ever been attacked once by the "jihad wagers", all other times the wars were started by Israel and took place on her neighbours territory, including the 1948 war.
Originally posted by Sandwich
But there will always be a conflict between Islam and Judaism (and, dare I say it, Christianity). Heck, I'll even toss in a bit of Biblical prophecy in here to stir things up. According to the book of Revelations (and Daniel, IIRC), there will be 3.5 years of peace in the middle east, brought on by the anti-christ. But that's all it will last. Now, I don't expect any of you to agree or believe this, but we shall see what the future holds.
Believe it or not, I hold great store in prophesies, I dont pass much heed of other peoples interpretations of them. Too much of evangilical preaching on them is coloured by racism and bigotry, for example the theory that Gog and Magog represent Russia or the ten horned beast represents the EU, especially considering that beast has 25 horns now. One thing I'd like to get your opinion on though is the jews who are not jews, but a synagogue of satan. Who do you think this is referring too?
-
So what we need is a man who knows how to abuse presidential power properly back in the whitehouse? I mean... bomb iraq, or get a blowjob...
-
Originally posted by Gank
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq.php
http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/
Unbiased alright :rolleyes: Do you ever check your facts before you post?
Gah, I should have known. The domain threw me off.
Originally posted by Gank
Incorrect, Muslims are not concerned that your god is stronger than theres, because most jews, christians and muslims accept that they all worship the same God...
Ok, let me spell it out for you... again: Allah IS NOT the same as Jesus.
Originally posted by Gank
...they are pissed because you are an outsider to the region who is coming in and stealing land. You can put whatever religious spin on it suits your beliefs, but that is what the conflict is really about.
If the conflict was about land, why didn't Arafat take what he was offered by Barak?? Heck, even the rest of the Arab leaders told him he was an idiot - he should have taken the ~95% he was offered and then fought over the rest. But no, Arafat realised that if he did that, world pressure would shift from pushing Israel to give the PLO land, to pushing the PLO to be satisfied with the ~95% of what they demanded. And that simply wouldn't do, because the whole point was to destroy Israel, not just get some measly bit of land.
Originally posted by Gank
Btw, Israel has only ever been attacked once by the "jihad wagers", all other times the wars were started by Israel and took place on her neighbours territory, including the 1948 war.
In response to your ststement that Israel started the '48 war:
Oh, JAPAN dropped a nuke on Pearl Harbor?? That's funny, I could have SWORN that they attacked Pearl Harbor conventionally, and that AMERICA nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki! But I guess if you choose to rewrite history, it must be true!
Don't be a retard.
Originally posted by Gank
Believe it or not, I hold great store in prophesies, I dont pass much heed of other peoples interpretations of them. Too much of evangilical preaching on them is coloured by racism and bigotry, for example the theory that Gog and Magog represent Russia or the ten horned beast represents the EU, especially considering that beast has 25 horns now. One thing I'd like to get your opinion on though is the jews who are not jews, but a synagogue of satan. Who do you think this is referring too?
If you hold great store in prophesies, how'd you miss these:
Ezekiel 20:34 - "'I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out.'"
Isaiah 11:11-12 - "It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Isaiah 66:8 - "Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion was in labor, She gave birth to her children. "
Ezekiel 36:24 - "'For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.'"
Amos 9:14-15 - "'I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, and no longer shall they be pulled up from the land I have given them,' says the LORD your God."
Need I continue?
As for the "synagogue of satan", what's the reference?
-
LMAO
This is getting good. :D
-
Sinagoge of Satan? What the hell is that? Where does it come from?
I've never quite heard that in my life.
A thought I have in my mind for years:
Wouldn't be possible that the palestinan people is actually all those jews that stayed in Juda (and therefore assimilated) after the Roman (not Romulan :D) and Persian, and whatever else, empires?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, let me spell it out for you... again: Allah IS NOT the same as Jesus.
No, Jesus is not the same as allah, because even Jesus himself never claimed to be God. In fact, in Matthew 13:53-58, he distinctly refers to himself as a prophet
Originally posted by Sandwich
If the conflict was about land, why didn't Arafat take what he was offered by Barak?? Heck, even the rest of the Arab leaders told him he was an idiot - he should have taken the ~95% he was offered and then fought over the rest. But no, Arafat realised that if he did that, world pressure would shift from pushing Israel to give the PLO land, to pushing the PLO to be satisfied with the ~95% of what they demanded. And that simply wouldn't do, because the whole point was to destroy Israel, not just get some measly bit of land.
He agreed to everything the Israelis offered, apart from their retention of control of the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site to Islam. That is why talks collapsed, not because he wants to destroy you for Satan.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandwich
In response to your ststement that Israel started the '48 war:
Oh, JAPAN dropped a nuke on Pearl Harbor?? That's funny, I could have SWORN that they attacked Pearl Harbor conventionally, and that AMERICA nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki! But I guess if you choose to rewrite history, it must be true!
Don't be a retard.
Let me spell this out for you, in 1948 jewish immigrants declared a republic on land that was not theirs. They started the war, plain and simple. Your example applies to your version, not mine, the arab response came after the Israeli action, not before. It is you who is IGNORING history.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ezekiel 20:34 - "'I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out.'"..........
Like I said, I dont put much faith in other peoples interpretations of them. Especially not in a book thats 2000 years old and been translated and retranslated repeatedly. Theres too much room for misinterpretation. Besides I regard the old testament and new testament as different religions, the gods in each are too far distant from each other, the old one is a ****** and the new one is a nice fella.
Originally posted by Sandwich
As for the "synagogue of satan", what's the reference?
Revelations 2:9 and 3:9
-
Originally posted by mrduckman
A thought I have in my mind for years:
Wouldn't be possible that the palestinan people is actually all those jews that stayed in Juda (and therefore assimilated) after the Roman (not Romulan :D) and Persian, and whatever else, empires?
Interesting thought, would put us at about the Gog-Magog war stage. I always wondered how the Israelis were going to retreat into Jordan from the antichrist, one would think they wouldnt be too welcome there after defeating the satanic muslim horde.
-
Originally posted by Gank
No, Jesus is not the same as allah, because even Jesus himself never claimed to be God. In fact, in Matthew 13:53-58, he distinctly refers to himself as a prophet
Ahh, very good. Now please notice that Jesus does lay claim to the title "Son of God", whereas Islam quite publically holds that God HAS NO SON.
Originally posted by Gank
He agreed to everything the Israelis offered, apart from their retention of control of the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site to Islam. That is why talks collapsed, not because he wants to destroy you for Satan.:rolleyes:
If you wanna get into a "holier than that" fight, then the Al-Aqsa mosque happens to be situated on the Temple Mount, the FIRST holiest site to Judaism. So there. :rolleyes: Besides, the Koran doesn't even mention Jerusalem directly once. There are a couple of references that could very well be referring to Jerusalem, but it seems kinda lax for Numero Tres.
Originally posted by Gank
Let me spell this out for you, in 1948 jewish immigrants declared a republic on land that was not theirs. They started the war, plain and simple. Your example applies to your version, not mine, the arab response came after the Israeli action, not before. It is you who is IGNORING history.
Oh please:
[q]On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly by a two-thirds vote (33 to 13 with Britain and nine others abstaining) passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish community of Palestine jubilantly accepted partition despite the small size and strategic vulnerability of the proposed state. Not only were Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip not included, but also Jerusalem, most of the Galilee in the North and parts of the Negev desert in the South were excluded. The Arab national movement in Palestine, as well as all the Arab states, angrily rejected partition. They demanded the entire country for themselves and threatened to resist partition by force. Had they accepted the U.N. proposal in 1947, the independent Palestinian Arab state, covering an area much larger than the West Bank and Gaza, would have been created along with Israel. Instead, they launched a war to destroy the nascent Jewish state.
UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on 16 February 1948:
Organized efforts are being made by strong Arab elements inside and outside Palestine to prevent the implementation of the Assembly's plan of partition and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory ... This Commission now finds itself confronted with an attempt to defeat its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly.
The UN had no army to enforce its decisions, and Britain would not use its forces in place for more than self-defense during the transition to independence scheduled for May 15, 1948. Consequently, small-unit warfare was conducted around the British all winter and spring, with the Jewish forces improving their holdings at the cost of several thousand Jews killed or wounded. As the first streams of Arab refugees were fleeing from towns overrun by Jewish units, a coalition of Arab nations was planning to invade Palestine immediately after the British evacuation on May 14, 1948. The invasion came immediately after the State of Israel was declared on May 15, 1948, precipitating Israel's War of Independence.[/q]
And yes, that's from that Palestine Facts site. Doesn't sound all that biased to me.
Originally posted by Gank
Like I said, I dont put much faith in other peoples interpretations of them. Especially not in a book thats 2000 years old and been translated and retranslated repeatedly. Theres too much room for misinterpretation. Besides I regard the old testament and new testament as different religions, the gods in each are too far distant from each other, the old one is a ****** and the new one is a nice fella.
You'd rather me post the original Hebrew? Or do you have some other translation that "explains" the "true" meaning of those terribly mistranslated verses, since of COURSE they CAN'T be meaning that the Bible prophesied that the Jews would return.
And I can understand how you would think that the God of the Tanach is a God of anger and wrath, whereas the God of the New Covenant is a God of love and mercy. But that's an impression that - while not uncommon - can easily be disproved. Lookie here; this is from the Old Covenant / Tanach:
[q]Jeremiah 31
1 "At that time," declares the LORD , "I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people."
2 This is what the LORD says:
"The people who survive the sword
will find favor in the desert;
I will come to give rest to Israel."
3 The LORD appeared to us in the past, [1] saying:
"I have loved you with an everlasting love;
I have drawn you with loving-kindness.
4 I will build you up again
and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel.
Again you will take up your tambourines
and go out to dance with the joyful.
5 Again you will plant vineyards
on the hills of Samaria;
the farmers will plant them
and enjoy their fruit.
6 There will be a day when watchmen cry out
on the hills of Ephraim,
'Come, let us go up to Zion,
to the LORD our God.' "
7 This is what the LORD says:
"Sing with joy for Jacob;
shout for the foremost of the nations.
Make your praises heard, and say,
'O LORD , save your people,
the remnant of Israel.'
8 See, I will bring them from the land of the north
and gather them from the ends of the earth.
Among them will be the blind and the lame,
expectant mothers and women in labor;
a great throng will return.
9 They will come with weeping;
they will pray as I bring them back.
I will lead them beside streams of water
on a level path where they will not stumble,
because I am Israel's father,
and Ephraim is my firstborn son.
10 "Hear the word of the LORD , O nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
'He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.'
11 For the LORD will ransom Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.
12 They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the LORD -
the grain, the new wine and the oil,
the young of the flocks and herds.
They will be like a well-watered garden,
and they will sorrow no more.
13 Then maidens will dance and be glad,
young men and old as well.
I will turn their mourning into gladness;
I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.
14 I will satisfy the priests with abundance,
and my people will be filled with my bounty,"
declares the LORD . [/q]
And then you have things like this in the lovey-dovey New Covenant:
[q]Revelations 14:9-11
9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."[/q]
I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of THAT.
Originally posted by Gank
Revelations 2:9 and 3:9
See, now this is why I love (and hate, at times ;)) these discussions - they make me think. :)
Here's the quote from 3:9:
[q]Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.[/q]
I don't know who it's referring to, but my first (wild, but reasonable) guess would be those Christians who are into Replacement Theology - the belief that, since the Jews killed Christ, they forfeit their Godly inheritance, which now passes onto the Church.
Though I'd certainly call that more of a deception than a belonging to the "synagogue of Satan". But on the other hand, Satan IS the great deceiver, so I guess it could fit just as well.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ahh, very good. Now please notice that Jesus does lay claim to the title "Son of God", whereas Islam quite publically holds that God HAS NO SON.
What about Trinity?
I'm a little confused... :confused:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ahh, very good. Now please notice that Jesus does lay claim to the title "Son of God", whereas Islam quite publically holds that God HAS NO SON.
Reference please. Any verses I've seen he refers to God as THE Father, not my father.
Originally posted by Sandwich
If you wanna get into a "holier than that" fight, then the Al-Aqsa mosque happens to be situated on the Temple Mount, the FIRST holiest site to Judaism. So there. :rolleyes: Besides, the Koran doesn't even mention Jerusalem directly once. There are a couple of references that could very well be referring to Jerusalem, but it seems kinda lax for Numero Tres.
Al-Aqsa is there now, Temple isnt. Given the fact that people like yourself are actively trying to bring about the end of the world and destruction of Al-Aqsa is part of this I cant really blame Arafat for not giving it up, regardless of its importance to Islam.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh please:
And yes, that's from that Palestine Facts site. Doesn't sound all that biased to me.
The whole sites majorly biased, I dont see how you could claim otherwise looking at the parent site. Nevertheless, it confirms what I said, Israel started it.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You'd rather me post the original Hebrew? Or do you have some other translation that "explains" the "true" meaning of those terribly mistranslated verses, since of COURSE they CAN'T be meaning that the Bible prophesied that the Jews would return.
They do, but like I said, I dont put any faith in other peoples interpretations of them, specially thousands of years after they happen. Could very well be Satan giving visions to people.
Originally posted by Sandwich
And I can understand how you would think that the God of the Tanach is a God of anger and wrath, whereas the God of the New Covenant is a God of love and mercy. But that's an impression that - while not uncommon - can easily be disproved. Lookie here; this is from the Old Covenant / Tanach:
Nevertheless, the overall tone is as you say, nasty in first book, kind in second.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't know who it's referring to, but my first (wild, but reasonable) guess would be those Christians who are into Replacement Theology - the belief that, since the Jews killed Christ, they forfeit their Godly inheritance, which now passes onto the Church.
Though I'd certainly call that more of a deception than a belonging to the "synagogue of Satan". But on the other hand, Satan IS the great deceiver, so I guess it could fit just as well.
Small problem here, the people you are appling it too arent claiming to be jews. Try again.
I was also doing a bit of looking up on the Gog Magog thing and came across this interesting piece:
Rabbi Chisdai Ibn Shaprut wrote to the king of Khazaria (a Caucasian kingdom in southern Russia which converted to Judaism in the eighth century after Christ) in which he addresses the king as 'prince, leader of Meshech and Tubal.' This salutation, drawn from our verse, indicates that the Gaonim had a tradition that these countries were indeed located in Russia.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/rusisrl.htm
The first few lines of the
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NASB&passage=Ezekiel+39
Quite interesting.
-
Trinity?
Hmm.
I think it is this way:
Jacob (later named Israel), son of Itzhak, son of Abraham. -> Israelim (Jews)
Ishmael (thus, the ishmaelim, later the muslim), son of Abraham -> Islam (not too different to Ismael, is it?)
Jesus, son of God knows who (I'm jewish. I will never say he's the son of God), son of some countless John Doe's, son of Abraham -> Christianism.
There it is the trinity, I think?
-
OIC, were talking about different religiouns. sorry :)
-
We started talking about the separation of the goverment and the church, and ended talking about the nonsense of the difference between the religions and points of view that take people nowhere.
Faith is an abstraction. Religion is subjective. Not objective, as it's been interpreted by far too many people. The thing that complicates the most is that when you subscribe to an interpretation you can go as far as the one who interpreted tells you to go. And perhaps with blind eyes.
And that's the problem here. Two nations, Jewish and Arabic, struggling for a piece of land, and like every other piece of land, that actually belongs to any one. (Setting the 'but I bought that land' aside for a moment, right?)
-
"I have no issues with any religion that says you have to wear your hair a certain length, or pray a certain number of times a day, or keep your head covered in church, or take the sacraments. It becomes a problem when it is a crime against the state when you don't." - The West Wing
-
Originally posted by Gank
Reference please. Any verses I've seen he refers to God as THE Father, not my father.
Erm... would this do?
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=my+father&x=20&y=8&SearchType=AND&version=NKJV&restrict=New_Testament&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0
Originally posted by Gank
Al-Aqsa is there now, Temple isnt. Given the fact that people like yourself are actively trying to bring about the end of the world and destruction of Al-Aqsa is part of this I cant really blame Arafat for not giving it up, regardless of its importance to Islam.
How am I actively trying to bring about the end of the world?
...And how did you know that??!?
Originally posted by Gank
The whole sites majorly biased, I dont see how you could claim otherwise looking at the parent site. Nevertheless, it confirms what I said, Israel started it.
Israel started the 1948 War of Independance. Right. I sure hope you don't (didn't?) try to pull that fleece over your history professor's eyes in college.
Originally posted by Gank
They do, but like I said, I dont put any faith in other peoples interpretations of them, specially thousands of years after they happen. Could very well be Satan giving visions to people.
I'm not quite folowwing what you're saying here. How would you understand those prophecies then?
Originally posted by Gank
Nevertheless, the overall tone is as you say, nasty in first book, kind in second.
True. Erm... what was the point of this particular line of debate?
Originally posted by Gank
Small problem here, the people you are appling it too arent claiming to be jews. Try again.
In a way, they are - a way that could be emcompassed by the meaning of those verses. They're laying claim to the eternal birthright that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants forever. They're thinking that they will replace the Jews in God's plans, inheriting all God's promises to the Jews. So in a way, it could be seen as them saying "we're the Chosen People, God's promises to the Jews are to us now."
Which sort of fits. It could be. It's just a thought. But I can't think of anything else it could be at the moment... which means absolutely nothing, of course. :p
Originally posted by Gank
I was also doing a bit of looking up on the Gog Magog thing and came across this interesting piece:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/rusisrl.htm
The first few lines of the
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NASB&passage=Ezekiel+39
Quite interesting.
Why does that article have to be soooo long?? :( :p
-
You know what always amused me about Christian Fundamentalists? They always like quoting the Apocalypse of Saint John. Do you all realize how close that book came to being cut from the Bible by the Council of Nicea? IIRC, the person who had the most profound influence on the Council's decisions actually favored the Apocalypse of St. Peter.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You know what always amused me about Christian Fundamentalists? They always like quoting the Apocalypse of Saint John. Do you all realize how close that book came to being cut from the Bible by the Council of Nicea? IIRC, the person who had the most profound influence on the Council's decisions actually favored the Apocalypse of St. Peter.
I look at it this way: If the Bible truly is God's Word, then I'm pretty sure I can trust Him to make sure that everything that ended up in the Bible we have today is what He wanted to be in there. It doesn't make any sense for someone who has faith in God to look at it any other way - you trust God, but you don't trust Him to keep His eye on something so critical?
However, that does not by any means rule out historical curiosity. :p What is this Apocolypse of St. Peter of which you speak? :)
-
It was another document, which didn't really survive to the present today, except in fragments. This seems to be a relatively good description: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apoc/apcpete.htm
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Originally posted by Gank
Reference please. Any verses I've seen he refers to God as THE Father, not my father.
Erm... would this do?
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...sh&searchpage=0
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
What about Trinity?
Can god be god's own father?!?!? :wtf:
¿
-
He was god here on earth, to us. And we receive our salvation through him. He is a part of god, the part that governs Humans.
Take a peach, there are three parts to the peach and they are all different things but it's still a peach.
I'm still a little fuzzy on the trinity...
*pulls out bible*
-
But if you take the insides of the peach, you can't say the lump (caroço, it's lump in english right?) IS the peach now can you?
If he says "I'm THE son of god", he can't be god... can he? :confused:
-
Got to look this up! Do you know where you can find where it talks about the trinity?
-
just found a enteresting part:
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Possibly he means he got his genes and looks from David? Not sure. He is not God's look, for nobody can see God, you see him through Jesus.
-
The Trinity(at least as I understand it)
God == Jesus == The Holy Ghost/Spirit
Let me use Andromeda as an anology. Andromeda(the one on the screen) is like God, he controls all things and it is by his will alone that we exist at all. Rommy(the android) is like Jesus, he is a piece of God, separate but connected to God to the point where they are the same being. Rommy(the hologram) is like The Holy Ghost, it is the part of God that nudges and whispers in our ears and sometimes shouts to get us to follow his will/plan for our lives.
All three are separate, but all three are the same being. God is omnipotent and can do stuff like that.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Erm... would this do?
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=my+father&x=20&y=8&SearchType=AND&version=NKJV&restrict=New_Testament&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0
Yep, but if he is god why did he call himself a prophet?
Originally posted by Sandwich
How am I actively trying to bring about the end of the world?
...And how did you know that??!?
I said people like yourself, not you in particular. Naturally I have no way of knowing if you are trying to bring about the end of the world.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Israel started the 1948 War of Independance. Right. I sure hope you don't (didn't?) try to pull that fleece over your history professor's eyes in college.
The very name of the war says it all.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I'm not quite folowwing what you're saying here. How would you understand those prophecies then?
I'd keep an open mind and not rule out any possibilitys.
Originally posted by Sandwich
True. Erm... what was the point of this particular line of debate?
Wasnt really a debate, I just said they seemed like different Gods to me.
Originally posted by Sandwich
In a way, they are - a way that could be emcompassed by the meaning of those verses. They're laying claim to the eternal birthright that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants forever. They're thinking that they will replace the Jews in God's plans, inheriting all God's promises to the Jews. So in a way, it could be seen as them saying "we're the Chosen People, God's promises to the Jews are to us now."
Which sort of fits. It could be. It's just a thought. But I can't think of anything else it could be at the moment... which means absolutely nothing, of course. :p
Hmmm, you're really stretching that one, several other more likely possiblies spring to mind, like those of Judaic faith but not descented from the Judaic people, ie the Khazars mentioned in the above article, or those who claim to be of the jewish nation but not the judaic faith. Kinda fit, just a thought.
-
Jesus is a prophet because he changed some of god's rules... this is for sure, but I can't remember what they are...
Ex.
>DT 24:1-5 A man can divorce his wife simply because she displeases him and
>both he and his wife can remarry.
>MK 10:2-12 Divorce is wrong, and to remarry is to commit adultery.
God works in mysterious ways. Even though they are confusing, you should stick to what you believe, for he hasn't gave up completely on us. Trinity is very confusing... I got to call some people to find out, though. I'm blank right know
-
http://www.newlightministries.com/trinityq.htm
Looks promising...
I'm going to read over it and see what to think
Scripture does not say Jesus is the Father. It simply shows us that the Father and Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) are the God that we know as Jehovah. This may be one of the reasons Jesus told us in John 5:23 that believers are “to honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” When we honor Jesus we honor the Father (John 12:26). Yes, the Trinity is a difficult concept to fully comprehend. Fortunately, God does not say we have to be able to fully comprehend everything about him (at least not in this life). In fact, whether we fully comprehend the Trinity isn’t the real issue at all. He simply says we must know and trust Him. John 17:3 says that eternal life is wrapped up in knowing God, not in taking in knowledge about him. John 5:39 says we can know all about the Scriptures, yet miss the most important fact of all…that we must come to Jesus alone for life. The apostle Paul’s greatest goal in life was to know Christ (Phil. 3:7-10). That is our highest calling…to know Jesus. To know Jesus is to know God, and knowing God is what life is all about.
-
I wish people could leave religion alone. I mean seriously, why does anyone even care? :doubt:
It seems of all the religions in the US, Christians and Catholics at times are being reported and complained about the most.
-
What do you care??
leave the thread... hey there's an idea
-
I asked you first. Why do you care, after all, since this topic meritted 4 pages...
-
I care!?!?
ROTFL...
What do you think religion is?
My way of life, my god, my beliefs. This thread was going great until you started with this why care? why keep on? sort of deal.
Real intelligent on your part, stop being obnoxious and go somewhere else.
-
Bah. Eat your toe nails. :lol:
The thing is, I present my "no-care" attitude because nothing good ever comes from religious discussions where both sides have a different opinion, no matter how small. I have witnessed such things on so many, many occasions that it just drives me nuts. Watch, within the next few pages I will probably get involved...
-
This not and athiest vs religion...
some good could come from this, nobody has been immature about anything so far. Now leave this thread to be... or atleast what I'm arguing about is trying to understand my religion more...
-
Well, jesus loves you.
But I think you're a jerk. :rolleyes:
-
some of us care because Religion is the greatest threat to the survival of the human race and we see it daily **** up lives, daily **** up science, daily **** up society
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If he says "I'm THE son of god", he can't be god... can he? :confused:
The Pharisees didn't like him precisely for the reason that claiming to be one meant claiming to be the other. :)
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Got to look this up! Do you know where you can find where it talks about the trinity?
The Trinity is a theological area implicitly covered by the Bible. But you'll never find the word trinity in the Bible, if that's what you mean. ;)
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Well, jesus loves you.
But I think you're a jerk. :rolleyes:
I know, you too
You came on a little strong, I don't wan't to offend you, but what's done is done. Be carefull, you are the only person who has this problem.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I asked you first. Why do you care, after all, since this topic meritted 4 pages...
-
Originally posted by Setekh
The Pharisees didn't like him precisely for the reason that claiming to be one meant claiming to be the other. :)
The Trinity is a theological area implicitly covered by the Bible. But you'll never find the word trinity in the Bible, if that's what you mean. ;)
Found that out... actually
But yes Trinity is a word created by man...
It does not mention the three for many possible reasons other than he ain't the true messiah. It mentions the coming of Jesus in the First bible, and that he would bring changes to the world. NOT saying I know what you believe :)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
some of us care because Religion is the greatest threat to the survival of the human race and we see it daily **** up lives, daily **** up science, daily **** up society
I agree to this a hundred percent.
-
Because it's true, doh :p
-
Interesting counterpoint to Kazan's veiwpoints: He is very eager, almost happy to point out the failures of religious dogma. Like much of the world he is lost in the dogma and misinterprets dogma for the actual message of faith. All Christian Denominations, including Catholicism, agree on several main points.
1)God, the same God as the Jews(hence Judeo-Christian), has stated repeatedly through the Bible, that all Humanity is guilty of sin. Sin is going against what God's stated rules of behavior, as well as direct orders.
2)Sin has only one possible punishment, death, both Physical and Spiritual.
3)God originially provided a single way for only the Jews to escape Judgement. To be Lawful, that is to follow the Law that God set down for the Jewish people which included of blood of the purest, most unblemished Lambs once a year by the High Priest, in a place in the Temple called the Holy of Holies, literally in God's physical presence according to the Bible. The High Priest had to have a rope tied to his ankle, because the possiblitiy was not insignificant that he would be struck dead because of some unrepented sin.
4)God in his infinite mercy, made the ultimate sacrifice, in the form of His son, Jesus Christ upon the most horrific method of execution ever created by man, crucifixion. This was a sacrifice so pure and holy that the Veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple was torn asunder. This is a symbol that God had chosen to no longer separate Himself from his creation as he had in the past.
5)Jesus sacrifice opened the path to eternal life in heaven to all mankind, all that is required is a truthful and honest acceptance of Jesus into your heart as saviour and lord.
Any arguments of Dogma and Theology are purely manmade and thus of no true use in understanding and having a relationship with God. All that is required is a clear mind, an open heart and a clear understanding of Jesus teachings in the Bible.
Any opposition by a Christian of a given life choice or life style is based on a love of life and all it's potential, not the desire to stifle and control every single aspect of people's lives.
-
I'm fine with religion as long as it affects nobody but the believer. Alas, this is untrue of all major faiths :( I always felt it was the need to aspire to something greater, and that means making powerful sacrifices, like accepting the truth, of abhoring violence, because we can choose not to be.
Yet, strangely enough, it is the major religions that are one of the main culprits for dragging us screaming from that plataeu over and over again. If all religions preached 'love God in your own way, and think not of people as things', which most religions claim, then that is what it says. it's easy to say 'Well, my way of worshipping is to burn people at the torch if they don't convert, but that is humanity interpreting, not God speaking. We need to tell the difference between the two :)
-
I've said this before...
It's not the religion that's killing the people. (Terrorism, Wars, ect...) It's people killing people. People don't open there eyes...
It doesn't say in the bible, to kill everybody that doesn't believe in the bibleor that has alot of money, whatever... Yet this is the way it was meant to be and predicted to be, IMO.
And nobody likes it or want to believe that the world of Humanity has a inevitable (SP?) fate....
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I'm fine with religion as long as it affects nobody but the believer. Alas, this is untrue of all major faiths :( I always felt it was the need to aspire to something greater, and that means making powerful sacrifices, like accepting the truth, of abhoring violence, because we can choose not to be.
I feel compelled to point out the irony of that statment. If that statment is true, then each man is an island, seperated from everyone else and that truth is relative. However what is wrong with this? If truth is relative then the statment can be true for someone while false to another. Which means that your statment can be null to me, because I've decided that is it false. Lets take this farther. If truth is relative, each man must decided for himself what is true, and that you cannot 'force' your opinions on another. Why are you trying to convince me of it? And even farther. If thruth is relative, why should I trust what you're saying is true, when truth itself is relative?
Originally posted by Flipside
Yet, strangely enough, it is the major religions that are one of the main culprits for dragging us screaming from that plataeu over and over again. If all religions preached 'love God in your own way, and think not of people as things', which most religions claim, then that is what it says. it's easy to say 'Well, my way of worshipping is to burn people at the torch if they don't convert, but that is humanity interpreting, not God speaking. We need to tell the difference between the two :)
What are we if we are not things? What sets us apart from everything else?
Where did you get this thing about burning ppl? There are proper and improper ways to worship. (This is talking about and from a Christian perspective) Saying burning people is worship for you is like says, "I'm worshipping God through my explicit intentional sin."
Back to truth, trust, and faith:
Let me ask you a question. How do you know what your eyes are seeing is reality? The answer is, you can't. To say that you have no faith (religious or otherwise) is to say that you have rock hard proof that everything you trust is trustworthy.
[edit] spelling
-
I'm assuming his reference is to things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials.
-
I feel compelled to point out the irony of that statment. If that statment is true, then each man is an island, seperated from everyone else and that truth is relative. However what is wrong with this? If truth is relative then the statment can be true for someone while false to another. Which means that your statment can be null to me, because I've decided that is it false. Lets take this farther. If truth is relative, each man must decided for himself what is true, and that you cannot 'force' your opinions on another. Why are you trying to convince me of it? And even farther. If thruth is relative, why should I trust what you're saying is true, when truth itself is relative?
But each man is an island, seperate from everyone else :) We cannot share experience or feelings, not from a base level, you cannot truly know how your comments or thoughts make another person feel. I am not trying to convert people, stating your own opinion is not an easy thing to do, as is not getting up tight when peoples reasons don't agree with yours (not yours but a hypothetical reader), that's why that path is so difficult, because it's so tempting to take the easy path. But I wouldn't try to force you to become what you are not, but you can force you not to hurt anyone else by doing it. That is the challenge.
We are not things because we can choose not to be, we are the only creatures even capable of the feeling of empathy, of at least to a tiny degree being able to place our emotions in other people and creatures. That's practically magical when you think about it. Yet we use it so so rarely.
I know my eyes are seeing reality because I believe them. They are only organs that transmit information to the brain in a manner your 'self' can interpret. If you start saying your eyes are lying to you, then you will probably just keep walking into lamposts ;)
And yes, I was referring to Christian conversion by torture as practised in less civilised days. But smaller, and larger crimes take place in all religions, even today.
I wouldn't say I trust everything, but I know what I believe, and you don't have to believe the same, that's the whole beauty of it, we've disagreed on something completely fundamental in religions, and yet have not attempted to kill each other, you would not do so in real life, if someone disagreed strongly enough, you would simply give up. So why do individuals think like this, and mobs think the exact opposite? Lack of Empathy.
So why does empathy drop as the group gets larger? Strength of numbers. A conquerable 'animal' situation. A person who realises he is a single entity, even in a crowd, is far more likely to carry empthy, than one who thinks he is part of the 'pack', because the pack will find itself agreeing on the first multi-compatible emotions, ie. fear and suspicion of the new and untested, of challenges on what they believe to be unchangeable.
So once again hard choices arise, I'm not saying it is an achievable goal, mankind, by it's own self destructive nature, would never unanimously decide to make the hard choices.
It's an interesting fact that the medical term for an individual who is incapable of empathy is 'phsycopath'.
-
someones fundamental thought processes being based off total and blatant irrationality is the most dangerous thing possible
"A Vorlon once said, 'The truth is a three edged sword, your side, their side, and The Truth'" - John Sheridan, B5 Episode "Into The Fire"
Science is the system of trying the best to be closet to the third option - theology is the system of choosing something that feels good even though it's the option with the least credibility (no credibility at all infact)
-
I agree, and as far as the existence of 'God' is concerned, I still don't believe in an entity with a concience or a will. I am not saying that the universe is more than we could possibly imagine either, I will never ever know, until the day I die. But I refuse to let that annoy me. I cannot change that fact. But I can choose to see the animal in myself, and control it when I can.
I don't always succeed, but the less I am an 'animal' the more I am a human, and the more I am a human, the more I have truly lived :)
-
"we are the only creatures even capable of the feeling of empathy"
you know that's incorect right?
-
Certain higher level primates bond, but once it is scared or intimidated, it immediately resorts to animal reaction, if that's what you mean. If not, tell me more :)
-
um - tons of animals bond and when scared/intimidated band TOGEATHER in common defense
-
Herd animals run collectively but they don't actually have any offensive capability. Sure they could kill a human just by stepping the wrong way but they don't know that. Other animals, let's take gorillas since they are pretty close to us genetically(then again so's a banana, but, anyway) they bond and have very strong family groups, but should a tiger or something attack, they either run or the silverback attempts individually to defend his family and territory. Big Cats will hunt together, even using modest tactics, but they usually run if the defense is too strong(elephant)
The only species on Earth that actually combine efforts in common defense against an agressor is Man and ants, and ants don't really count because they have no mind or a rudimentary hive mind at best.
-
banana?
-
I really must disagree with you Kazan. Man in fundamentally in irrational being, even more so than an animal.
An animal acts according to instinct, to survive. Self interest. But man has concepts that are totally irrational, such as love, freedom, the search for meaning, identity, truth. Man has ego, but also kindness. You can kill 10,000 for religion, but still give your life to save a loved one.
Denying everything in human that is not rational is denying our identity. Why do you think that we are constantly searching for something greater, an irrational concept if ever there was one, Why do all humans feel it necessary to spend their lives in pursuit of something else, something bigger. Science or religion, its just different paths down the same road.
Now, I do agree that religion should be kept out of politics, but religion is, in some form or another, a fundamental part of human beings.
-
I'm not talking about herd animals
Originally posted by Liberator
The only species on Earth that actually combine efforts in common defense against an agressor is Man and ants, and ants don't really count because they have no mind or a rudimentary hive mind at best.
That is patently false - a great many primates for prime example
you = underinformed
-
here's one for all you [l]antidisestablishmentarians[/l] religion bashers. Great song, I recommend you download it.
by Bad Religion
"God's Love"
Striking at mental apparitions
Like a drunk on a vacant street
Silently beset by the hands of time
Indelicate in its fury
An aberrant crack as skeletons yield
To unrelenting gravity
While viruses prowl for helpless victims
Who succumb rapidly
(Tell me!) Tell me;
Where is the love?
In a careless creation
When there’s no “above”
There’s no justice
Just a cause and a cure
And a bounty of suffering
It seems we all endure
And what I’m frightened of
Is that they call it “God’s love”
Twisted torment, make-believe
There’s a truth and we all submit
“Believe my eyes,” my brain replies
To all that they interpret
[Chorus]
I know there’s no reason for alarm
But who needs perspective when it comes to pain and harm
We can change our minds; there’s a better prize
But first you’ve got to…
[Chorus]
They call it God’s love
My pain is God’s love
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I really must disagree with you Kazan. Man in fundamentally in irrational being, even more so than an animal.
perhaps the un- or undereducated pperson
that doesn't make it excusable in this day and age
Originally posted by Rictor
An animal acts according to instinct, to survive. Self interest. But man has concepts that are totally irrational, such as love, freedom, the search for meaning, identity, truth. Man has ego, but also kindness. You can kill 10,000 for religion, but still give your life to save a loved one.
Love is not irrational, freedom is extremely rational - religion is anything but truth.
Ego - religion is very much about ego (outwardly many are self-denialistic, however you become 'important in the eyes of a greater beying' -- you want to feel important)
You can kill 0 for religion, but still give your life to save a loved one.
Originally posted by Rictor
Denying everything in human that is not rational is denying our identity.
There is a difference between denying and being intellectually mature enough to exercise self control
Originally posted by Rictor
Why do you think that we are constantly searching for something greater,
Because most people don't understand that there no only doesn't need to be something greater, the think reality is subject to their emotional whims
Originally posted by Rictor
an irrational concept if ever there was one,
depends on what you mean by 'something greater' -- the species as a whole is 'something greater' than the individual
the universe is something greater than the planet
if you mean explicitly something of supernatural nature - then yes it is irrational per definition ('super-' meaning beyond, 'natural' is obvious -- BEYOND NATURAL, ie NOT WITHIN NATURE - anything not within nature doesn't exist)
Originally posted by Rictor
Why do all humans feel it necessary to spend their lives in pursuit of something else, something bigger. Science or religion, its just different paths down the same road.
Religion is not something greater - it's an opiate and a blinder -- science is trying to figure out what things really are.
Different paths down completely different roads
A) Religion - the 1000 pleasant lies
B) Science - the one boring truth
One is a mature decision, the otherone is not
Originally posted by Rictor
Now, I do agree that religion should be kept out of politics, but religion is, in some form or another, a fundamental part of human beings.
That doesn't justify or validate it - it just shows how succeptable the un- or undereducated masses are to irrational flights of fancy being taken as reality.
-
*shakes head*
You'll understand one day, trust me.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
perhaps the un- or undereducated person(corrected spelling)
Whereas Kazan and his superior intellect knows better?!?!?!?
Love is not irrational, freedom is extremely rational - religion is anything but truth.
Oh, quite the contrary, Love is very irrational. Why voluntarily open yourself up to so much potential pain?
Freedom is also not as rational as you would believe, the only way for a human or a group of humans to be perfectly free is to take the freedom of all other humans who have differing opinions.
Ego - religion is very much about ego (outwardly many are self-denialistic, however you become 'important in the eyes of a greater beying' -- you want to feel important)
Religion(by this I mean Christianity, I'll specify if I mean differently) is not about doing things to be important in the eyes of God, in fact people who do this have tendency of falling, hard, Jim Baker anyone? Religion is about coming to the realization that the almighty, all-knowing Creator of Everything knows you intimately and loves you individually.
Because most people don't understand that there no only doesn't need to be something greater, the think reality is subject to their emotional whims
depends on what you mean by 'something greater' -- the species as a whole is 'something greater' than the individual
the universe is something greater than the planet
if you mean explicitly something of supernatural nature - then yes it is irrational per definition ('super-' meaning beyond, 'natural' is obvious -- BEYOND NATURAL, ie NOT WITHIN NATURE - anything not within nature doesn't exist)
Quite the contrary, the more scientific evidence that comes to light, the more I am amazed at the complexity of the Universe and the more I realize that there was a conscience hand behind the Creation of it.
Religion is not something greater - it's an opiate and a blinder --
I've realized that you have a religion too, your irrational hatred of religion in all it forms is your religion, and your god is Niezchete(however the hell you spell it)
science is trying to figure out what things really are.
Do you realize how many of these scientists you idolize are Christian?
Different paths down completely different roads
A) Religion - the 1000 pleasant lies
B) Science - the one boring truth
One is a mature decision, the otherone is not
Umm, no.
Religion == Why and an All-Knowing Creator explaining how the universe works to a stunted imperfect creation in a way they can understand.
Science == How and the stunted creation realizing how imperfect and ignorant they really are.
It take true maturity to see that. It takes both. One is meaningless without the other.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
We are not things because we can choose not to be, we are the only creatures even capable of the feeling of empathy, of at least to a tiny degree being able to place our emotions in other people and creatures. That's practically magical when you think about it. Yet we use it so so rarely.
Sorry. Kazan is right. Chimps can do it too.
Since we can't talk to them it’s harder to tell if chimpanzees have theory of mind too. But at the Max Plank Institute they’ve designed ingenious experiments to find out. Chimpanzees are very hierarchical, a subordinate chimp won’t even go for the banana when a dominant chimp is around. In this experiment a student hid a banana, the subordinate chimp could see it but the dominant couldn’t. Did she know the dominant couldn’t see the banana? The subordinate chimp understood that the dominant chimp couldn’t see the fruit, so she snatched it. But to have theory of mind chimpanzees have to know what other chimps know. This time both chimps saw the food being hidden. The cage door was closed, so that the dominant couldn’t see what the subordinate saw. A student moved the food. The subordinate stood a chance of getting the banana, because she knew that the dominant chimp did not know where the food was.
Prof MICHAEL TOMASELL: In the experiments with chimpanzees they know whether the other one has visual access or not to a piece of food. So it’s very similar to the study with children in the sense that they know what the other one can and can’t see. And in one variation of the experiment they know what the other one saw a moment ago.
NARRATOR: So does this mean that chimpanzees can understand what other chimps are thinking?
Dr JANE GOODALL: There’s absolutely no question that chimpanzees understand the needs and the emotions of other chimpanzees and respond correctly. They can even understand the needs of another human being, so clearly they do have theory of mind.
The full transcript can be found (on yet another link to the BBC Horizon page :D ) here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/demonicapetrans.shtml)
-
By Kazan
if you mean explicitly something of supernatural nature - then yes it is irrational per definition ('super-' meaning beyond, 'natural' is obvious -- BEYOND NATURAL, ie NOT WITHIN NATURE - anything not within nature doesn't exist)
But how do you know this? (poking a little fun) If something is outside of nature, and you say, therefore it doesn't exist. How can that be? To say something is outside of nature is to basicly admit it exists, but then to say it doesn't is a contradiction. It would have been better just to say nothing exists outside of nature (I'm sure this is what you meant BTW). But then again, we come back to the question, "How do you know?"
[edit, cool new 158th avatar!]
-
None of you exist, you're all figments of my imagination. Debate!
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I'm fine with religion as long as it affects nobody but the believer. Alas, this is untrue of all major faiths :(
Any assertion of truth affects more people than those who believe them. For instance, every assertion of truth in this thread. :)
-
Assertion affects anyone who listens. Any asserted opinion does.
-
Indeed. I get the idea that most people forget that...
-
And a forum is for asserting opinions ;)
Bonding is not Empathy :) Some creatures show empathic reactions to stimuli, but would one chimp stop another chimp from harming a creature of another species or chimp from another tribe out of sympathy? We can choose to do so if we want, we just have to choose the cereberal cortex instead of the lizard brain.
While I agree with Kazan that you cannot believe in something that doesn't exist (or possibly that belief causes it to exist), I also disagree with saying religion is pointless when science cannot answer everything atm. The whole idea of science is to be open to ALL answers until it has disproved the useless ones. If one of the disproved ones is the religious one then fine, but I personally don't like to make generalised remarks about things I don't understand, everyone and no-one could be right, that's the fun of life :)
Your broad minds and narrow waists aren't supposed to swap places until you are older than I am now ;)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
Some students of animal behaviour claim that empathy is not restricted to humans as the definition implies. Examples include dolphins saving humans from drowning or from shark attacks, and a multitude of behaviours observed in primates, both in captivity and in the wild.
-
Other students claim it doesn't :)
Look, we can play Web-site ping-pong if you like, but personally, I believe that while animals can bond and unite as a pack, like humans can, only humans have the possibility of carrying that empathy beyond the pack into other species and even inanimate objects and plants. We can be aware of the outcomes of our actions, and responsible for them.
The religious here will blame it on God.
The scientists here will blame it on Chemistry.
Personally, I say it's down to choice :)
Edit : There have been occasions when animals have displayed empathy, I'm not denying that, I'm not saying we are a 'divine construction'; but we have it in us to apply it when we choose and how we choose.
Anyway, I'm not going to let this deteriorate into an an argument that we honestly are never going to resolve until we are dead anyway :D
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But how do you know this? (poking a little fun) If something is outside of nature, and you say, therefore it doesn't exist.
If we do not observe something in the natural world - after extremely ammounts of effort to do so - then it makes sense to say it's not
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How can that be? To say something is outside of nature is to basicly admit it exists, but then to say it doesn't is a contradiction.
no saying something is "outside of the natural world" means it _doesn't exist_ in reality, but only in the minds of people -- it's just put in diplomatic terms as to not offend fanatics
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
It would have been better just to say nothing exists outside of nature (I'm sure this is what you meant BTW). But then again, we come back to the question, "How do you know?"
the definitition of nature is "All things that exist" -- something as thoroughly searched for a deity would have surely had _SOME_ evidence found either way for if there was even a chance of the existance of one
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Whereas Kazan and his superior intellect knows better?!?!?!?
neither does this refute my statement, nor does it insult me -- there are a quite a number of people who know better
Originally posted by Liberator
Oh, quite the contrary, Love is very irrational. Why voluntarily open yourself up to so much potential pain?
why risk at all? without risk there is no gain, with great risk there is often the possibility for great gain.
Originally posted by Liberator
Freedom is also not as rational as you would believe, the only way for a human or a group of humans to be perfectly free is to take the freedom of all other humans who have differing opinions.
Only in your narrowminded view of freedom
Originally posted by Liberator
Religion(by this I mean Christianity, I'll specify if I mean differently) is not about doing things to be important in the eyes of God, in fact people who do this have tendency of falling, hard, Jim Baker anyone? Religion is about coming to the realization that the almighty, all-knowing Creator of Everything knows you intimately and loves you individually.
This "realization" is anything _but_ though - when i talk about religion i talk about ALL religion - let's be specific - there is not on scrap of evidence that your diety exists - and until any evidence is found it remains totally and completely irrational
furthermore I have a large ammount of confidence that no evidence will ever be found to support the existance of a deity due to the long fruitless search of religious nuts who fancy themselves scientists -- it's so remotely beyond being possible that you will never find evidence directly addressing it either day
Originally posted by Liberator
Quite the contrary, the more scientific evidence that comes to light, the more I am amazed at the complexity of the Universe and the more I realize that there was a conscience hand behind the Creation of it.
One who does not understand the mechanisms of nature is often amazed by the resultant of those mechanisms - no intelligent entity is required to have the results of inertia and gravitic interaction that we all the universe.
All these "incredible complex" mechanisms you see are governmend by infinitely simple equasions
Originally posted by Liberator
I've realized that you have a religion too, your irrational hatred of religion in all it forms is your religion, and your god is Niezchete(however the hell you spell it)
don't insult you me plebian moron - A) I have no faith, absolutely no faith, i am totaly utterly and completely without faith -- therefore it is impossible for anything i believe to constitute a religion
FRUTHERMORE I came to my philosophy independant of nietzsche, I just happen to agree with him often - I do not worship the ground he walked on, he had many a fault and some of them seeped into his writings on his philosophy
you are a presumptious offensive simpleton - BEGONE MORON
Originally posted by Liberator
Do you realize how many of these scientists you idolize are Christian?
I don't idolize anyone -- furthermore i've explained this before - the psychological concept of compartmentalization - you put some of your 'mind' in a compartment in which you don't apply critical thinking
some people are just capable of keeping their irrationality inside that compartment as well
Originally posted by Liberator
Umm, no.
Religion == Why and an All-Knowing Creator explaining how the universe works to a stunted imperfect creation in a way they can understand.
Science == How and the stunted creation realizing how imperfect and ignorant they really are.
It take true maturity to see that. It takes both. One is meaningless without the other.
Wrong religion is the emotional crutch created by believing things that you have no evidence for - it is no more, no less -- you cannot even open your eyes for the mist spread across them by your fundamentalism - you are a fool of your own volition. I should pity you but instead I scorn you due to your behavior.
Science is figuring out how the universe works and what is real.
To ascribe value to an individual human [yourself] by beliving in a "higher being" is an exercise in arrogance
-
Originally posted by Flipside
. The whole idea of science is to be open to ALL answers until it has disproved the useless ones.
no - open to all answers that have _evidence_ supporting them
-
Originally posted by Kazan
no - open to all answers that have _evidence_ supporting them
that's where you are wrong Kazan. Science is open to all possible things. That which has not been proven nor disproven isn't labelled impossible per definition.
If something cannot be disproven it's a possibility. Only if it's disproven does science disregard it.
-
I wonder how would catholics react if it was found that their god was an equation! :lol:
-
Tiara: if something is not even in the realm of possibilities there will be no evidence either way -- it it's not possible you will not find anything to address it
Science is open to all things that have support
furthermore if something has absolutely no support it is [per definition] irrational to believe in it
the rules of logic dictate that a lack of evidence does not prove non-existance - however the lack of evidence still makes it irrational to believing in (by those same rules of logic)
-
Kazan, you are...
(http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/malos/spock.gif)
highly illogical.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
no - open to all answers that have _evidence_ supporting them
Do you wan't God's shoe? :p
Yes you are a ----> Vulcan :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
If we do not observe something in the natural world - after extremely ammounts of effort to do so - then it makes sense to say it's not
So you'd agree that science is concerned with 'nature', plants, animal, people, or physical things?
Originally posted by Kazan
no saying something is "outside of the natural world" means it _doesn't exist_ in reality, but only in the minds of people -- it's just put in diplomatic terms as to not offend fanatics
But is not the mind part of nature? Meaning that it exists within the natural realm. I like to point out that your thoughts on the super-natural are in your mind as well, just like my thoughts on the subject. To think that there is no super-natural is to claim to know something about it. Specificly, that it doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Kazan
the definitition of nature is "All things that exist" -- something as thoroughly searched for a deity would have surely had _SOME_ evidence found either way for if there was even a chance of the existance of one
Of course there's evidence! It's been said at least once in this thread, and IIRC in others. Nature (the physical) IMHO, is to complex to have 'just happened'. (not wanting to sound condesending) You on the other hand, think just about the opposite. We are both looking at the same world. The question is, are you (the reader 'you' not you ;)) viewing it correctly?
-
HotSnoj: nature meaning everything that exists
Something existing inside the mind does not make it exist in reality - if you cannot see the difference between these two then i have a great ammount of pity for you
"Nature IMHO, is to complex to have 'just happened'" - this is an OPINION, not evidence
The answer to whether I am viewing it correctly is: The best we can
The answer to whether you are viewing it correct is: not in the slightest
-
didn't Rene Descartes prove that the world is in fact real?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
HotSnoj: nature meaning everything that exists
But something super-natural is outside of, beyond, not constrained by nature (in a simple sense, its gets a little more complex as you think more about it). So if we accept that there is a super-natural, then nature cannot be everything that exists.
Originally posted by Kazan
Something existing inside the mind does not make it exist in reality - if you cannot see the difference between these two then i have a great ammount of pity for you
I know that. Just because I think up pink elephants with white polka-dots, does not make then exist. However if we are contrained to explain everything in purely physical terms, then all thought is chemical and/or electicity flowing through my vains. Which would mean my thoughts existed in the physical realm. ;) See my line of reasoning now?
Originally posted by Kazan
"Nature IMHO, is to complex to have 'just happened'" - this is an OPINION, not evidence
I know it's an opinion. But so is yours! Like I said before, we're both looking at the same things. However our primary assumtions are different. You believe that since there is no super-natural (God) then whatever you think on how we got here is true. And you look at the evidence in such a way to backup your assumtion. And I freely admit I do exactly the same thing.
[strays slightly from topic]
Ever hear of Pascal's Wager? The point of the wager was not to prove Christianity right. But to show it would be foolish not to believe, even if it was wrong. This in and of itself is not a good reason to believe.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: if something is not even in the realm of possibilities there will be no evidence either way -- it it's not possible you will not find anything to address it
[/b]
EVERYTHING except the disproven things are in the realm of possibilities. Now, I don't believe in any God or other supreme being but I cannot discount it because there has been no proof whatsoever either way.
And by saying there will never be proof you are as big a fool as the people who said the Earth was flat.
Science is open to all things that have support
furthermore if something has absolutely no support it is [per definition] irrational to believe in it
the rules of logic dictate that a lack of evidence does not prove non-existance - however the lack of evidence still makes it irrational to believing in (by those same rules of logic)
I'm not saying you have to believe in it. I'm saying that is impossible outright deny it when there is no evidence either way.
And again; by saying there will never be proof you are as big a fool as the people who said the Earth was flat.
EVERYTHING that has not been disproven is possible, however unlikely.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
But something super-natural is outside of, beyond, not constrained by nature (in a simple sense, its gets a little more complex as you think more about it). So if we accept that there is a super-natural, then nature cannot be everything that exists.
Being able to describe a concept does not mean we accept it's validity - I completely reject the validity of the supernatural - there is no evidence to support their existance
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I know that. Just because I think up pink elephants with white polka-dots, does not make then exist. However if we are contrained to explain everything in purely physical terms, then all thought is chemical and/or electicity flowing through my vains. Which would mean my thoughts existed in the physical realm. ;) See my line of reasoning now?
Your thoughts are real, however what you're thinking about doesn't have to be real
you know this, stop this banter
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I know it's an opinion. But so is yours! Like I said before, we're both looking at the same things. However our primary assumtions are different. You believe that since there is no super-natural (God) then whatever you think on how we got here is true. And you look at the evidence in such a way to backup your assumtion. And I freely admit I do exactly the same thing.
However mine opinion has the support of EVIDENCE, you're DOES NOT
You say "since i cannot explain this a god must have done it!"
We say "we have found these simple equasions for the interaction of these simple forces that leads logically to what we see today"
not "whatever I think" - whatever has the best evidence to support it.
I have not made assumptions
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
[strays slightly from topic]
Ever hear of Pascal's Wager? The point of the wager was not to prove Christianity right. But to show it would be foolish not to believe, even if it was wrong. This in and of itself is not a good reason to believe.
Pascal's Gamble is no excuse - it's foolish to believe in something when the ramifications of basing your entire worldview upon irrationality is so negative
-
Originally posted by Tiara
EVERYTHING except the disproven things are in the realm of possibilities. Now, I don't believe in any God or other supreme being but I cannot discount it because there has been no proof whatsoever either way.
[/B]
This is pretty much how I feel on the subject, if there was evidence to prove or disprove then I could make a decision, as it is I don't like picking sides when I haven't got a ****ing clue what side is right.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Being able to describe a concept does not mean we accept it's validity - I completely reject the validity of the supernatural - there is no evidence to support their existance
True, but that seems to be the exact case for Evolution. IME anyway.
Originally posted by Kazan
Your thoughts are real, however what you're thinking about doesn't have to be real
you know this, stop this banter
Can do.
Originally posted by Kazan
However mine opinion has the support of EVIDENCE, you're DOES NOT
That's so....stupid, I can't even think of a proper response.
Originally posted by Kazan
You say "since i cannot explain this a god must have done it!"
We say "we have found these simple equasions for the interaction of these simple forces that leads logically to what we see today"
not "whatever I think" - whatever has the best evidence to support it.
I have not made assumptions
Yes you have. What have I said. I said your starting assumption is that there is no super-natural. Therefore you rule it out of everything you think and use as evidence. Everyone must start out with an assumption, and believe it or not, it is based on faith (not necessarily a 'religious' one).
Originally posted by Kazan
Pascal's Gamble is no excuse - it's foolish to believe in something when the ramifications of basing your entire worldview upon irrationality is so negative
It is no excuse. However it does bring a valid point to the table. If I wager for God, there is a possiblilty for an infinite amount of joy to obtain. And only a finite amount if I wager against God. Basicly speaking, do I lose my life now or later? How much do I stand to win or lose?
Now let me ask you this. If I could prove to you that everything I've told you about the Bible being true, there is a God, and so forth. Would you accept it?
-
So basically Kaz, you're whole basis for you're position is this:
There is no physical proof(IE foot prints, schlufed off skin cells, ect) that God exists. So therefore any person or thing that believes differently is a dangerous moron and should be attacked or ignored.
To this I ask you: What about the philosopher's in history that believed that atoms existed when all the available scientific evidence of the time suggested otherwise? Were they morons to be ignored as well?
Just because Science can't prove something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't. That's where it becomes faith. That's what I'm getting at, Science is not the "be all, end all" of understanding.
-
Let's try to end this discussion. Science cannot prove that god does not exist. You cannot know the whole reality because by trying to know it you alter it. If you do not know all reality something may or may not exist beyond our knowledge. Some choose to believe there is a god, some don't. You can only prove something exists, you cannot prove that something doesn't exist. So... it's a perpectual fight between Religion and Science.
-
EDIT:
Double post, please delete it.
Sorry
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
True, but that seems to be the exact case for Evolution. IME anyway.
There is EVIDENCE, a ****ton of it, that supports microevolution - and macroevolution is trying to fit the fossils we find into the correct order
That's so....stupid, I can't even think of a proper response.
Yes, it is stupid that you cling to a position without evidence
Yes you have. What have I said. I said your starting assumption is that there is no super-natural. Therefore you rule it out of everything you think and use as evidence. Everyone must start out with an assumption, and believe it or not, it is based on faith (not necessarily a 'religious' one).
assumption? i said PER DEFINITION of what is supernatural
i have faith in nothing, stop trying to project your weakness onto me it's grown quite vexing
It is no excuse. However it does bring a valid point to the table. If I wager for God, there is a possible for an infinite amount of joy to obtain. And only a finite amount if I wager against God. Basically speaking, do I lose my life now or later? How much do I stand to win or lose?
It validates nothing - an infinitessimally small probability multiplied by an infinitessimally large payoff is a less than safe bet than a moderate probability multiplied by a moderate payoff
Furthermore having irrationality as the basis of your worldview is demonstrable harmful to your ability to make proper decisions, and through the rammifications of that it is harmful to humanity as whole - we see this DAILY
Now let me ask you this. If I could prove to you that everthing I've told you about the Bible being true, there is a God, and so forth. Would you accept it?
If there was evidence to support the existance of a god I wouldn't stand opposed to people believing - if there was strong evidence supporting the existance of a God I would believe like any good objective thinker
-
Originally posted by Liberator
So basically Kaz, you're whole basis for you're position is this:
There is no physical proof(IE foot prints, schlufed off skin cells, ect) that God exists. So therefore any person or thing that believes differently is a dangerous moron and should be attacked or ignored.
physics proof goes way beyond foot springs and schluffed off skin - but yes
Anyone who basis their view of reality off of irratinality is demonstrable dangerous - the people who don't conform to a major belief system when doing this are labeled 'crazy' - but they're no less sane than the rest of you.
It is demonstrably true that people who base their view of reality off irrationality are a threat to the survival of the human race.
To this I ask you: What about the philosopher's in history that believed that atoms existed when all the available scientific evidence of the time suggested otherwise? Were they morons to be ignored as well?
They had LOGIC to back them up, and point out a single one that thought atoms existed without some sort of EVIDENCE -- you will find _NONE_
PS scientists, not philosophers (even if they're philosophers, while they're doing scientific work they are a scientist)
Just because Science can't prove something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't.
However that DOES mean it is irrational to believe in said things existance - especially when you hold thing B that rely on said thing A's existance to be true and there is direct evidence contradicting thing B
That's where it becomes faith. That's what I'm getting at, Science is not the "be all, end all" of understanding.
Faith is a patently a fallacy - and yes science IS the "be all, end all" of understanding what is real
-
However that DOES mean it is irrational to believe in said things existance - especially when you hold thing B that rely on said thing A's existance to be true and there is direct evidence contradicting thing B
First of all, irrationality is subjective.
And your argument bis flawed. It uses evidence to contradict something. In that case there is in fact scientific evidence.
We're talking stuff without either evidence backing it up or dismissing it. You CANNOT dismiss something that cannot be disproven or proven. However unlikely it is. Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it's per definition irrational as you so *cough* elegantly stated.
For something to be irrational you have to have a predetermined opinion about it. Hence making it not science but simple bigotry.
-
What would qualify as concrete proof or disproof of the existence of God (or any other supreme being/s), though?
I mean, the very nature of such a thing is that he, she, or it would be responsible for everything, including the makeup of the world - and thus would be able to control, as it were, that evidence. So it would consequentially be impossible to disprove God.
(except, of course, if you biased your reading of the evidence)
Not that i am, by any stretch of the imagination, religious - but maybe you should consider that when making this argument. That is, if you are interested in trying to understand the other side of it.
-
Tho, Tiara, I'd say that science wouldn't discard a theory if it's been disproven either, coz it has happened many times that something that is proven wrong in some case can be true in another situation. Or vice versa.
Anyway, I'm amazed at the enrgy people put in those threads: You'de be better of searching an old religion thread and copy/paste your old posts, you'd save muchos efforts :p
-
Tiara: irrationality is _NOT_ subjective, because rationality is _NOT_ subjective
Believing in something to which you have no evidence to support is BY DEFINITION irrational
and it is demonstrably true that people basing their view of reality of irrationality are DANGEROUS
-
I know the arguement may have moved beyond this, but i've been thinking and typings this up for too long, so here ya go:
Originally posted by Liberator
To this I ask you: What about the philosopher's in history that believed that atoms existed when all the available scientific evidence of the time suggested otherwise? Were they morons to be ignored as well?
Except any fool in ancient times could realize he had pathetic amounts of data. "Theories" at the time were, with few exceptions, pure speculation. Democritus had no evidence, and neither did those who disagreed with him. They both guessed and one side ended up being right.
Today, on the other hand, our technology on the other hand is advanced enough for us to observe all except for the very small and the very far away, and through clever tricks we can infer what we cannot directly observe. Based on that information, the existence of a "god" described in the bible is unnessesary. Let me explain this.
What does it mean, exactly, to understand reality? (I'm using reality because the word encompasses more than just the universe). Basically, it is to become aware of reality, to know the "nature" of it (I know this sounds quite Buddhist).
But what is it, exactly, that we are becoming aware of? WHat exists? All that we seem to be "aware of" is what we A. "sense", AKA, physical things, and B. thoughts, emotions, and other things of the mind (this is what is called Cartesian dualism, though other philosophical theories state that there is no difference between the mental and the physical. I myself am not a dualist).
Now, back to God. From our observations, no God(s) comes up. Furthermore, to have him exist would conflict with what we do observe (physical laws, etc.). Therefore such a thing as a god need not (infact must not) exist for us to understand reality, which why I say he is unneccesary.
Christianity states that God is "supernatural", apart from what is physical/mental. If that is true, than he not observable. How, then, can we become aware of him? We can't. Which leades us to:
1. How can something we cannot be aware of exist?
2. How can something we cannot be aware of influence what we are aware of?
Thus we are forced to accept the conclusion that a supernatural god does not exist.[/u] (According to Kazan, whom I agree with, the God you believe in is actually just a non-supernatural, mental idea you cling to)
I know I kinda repeated myself the last two paragraphs. I'm gonna need to fix this up alot.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: irrationality is _NOT_ subjective, because rationality is _NOT_ subjective
Believing in something to which you have no evidence to support is BY DEFINITION irrational
and it is demonstrably true that people basing their view of reality of irrationality are DANGEROUS
Well, what definition of rationality are you using? - because there are several I've seen (especially if you expand it with various definitions of 'reason').
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: irrationality is _NOT_ subjective, because rationality is _NOT_ subjective
Believing in something to which you have no evidence to support is BY DEFINITION irrational
and it is demonstrably true that people basing their view of reality of irrationality are DANGEROUS
Irrationality _IS_ subjective.
What one person will view as irrational, the other will view it as rational. This thread is the perfect example of this.
-
Tiara: perhaps to _you_ but i am adhering strictly to the rules of logic (ie what we've been working on the refinement of for 1000+ years and have a very stable self-evident ruleset now)
if you have been trained in Logic (capital L should noted) then rationality and irrationality are _NOT_ subjective - neither should they EVER be
once again this is a matter of people's personal opinion being trumped by facts
-
What are the rules of logic_with_a_big_L, then?
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Christianity states that God is "supernatural", apart from what is physical/mental. If that is true, than he not observable. How, then, can we become aware of him? We can't. Which leades us to:
1. How can something we cannot be aware of exist?
2. How can something we cannot be aware of influence what we are aware of?
There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument. The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist. A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".
I challenge this statement, there is proof that God exists looking at your monitor and sitting in your chair right now. Life is proof that God exists, you can argue statistics and "proof" all you want, but the odds are astronomically against life forming and developing the way you suggest. With odds like that, it would suggest that we are unique in the Universe and it's googleplexes of cubic parsecs, I refuse to accept that.
A second flaw in the statement that Man only has 2 aspects, physical and mental. Untrue, we have a third aspect, spiritual, an ephemeral part of us that we cannot ordinarly access, a soul if you will. God is a one-hundred percent spiritual being, therefore, we will probably never be able to empirically detect his existence because we have such a poor understanding of this aspect of our being.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument. The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist. A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".
I challenge this statement, there is proof that God exists looking at your monitor and sitting in your chair right now. Life is proof that God exists, you can argue statistics and "proof" all you want, but the odds are astronomically against life forming and developing the way you suggest. With odds like that, it would suggest that we are unique in the Universe and it's googleplexes of cubic parsecs, I refuse to accept that.
A second flaw in the statement that Man only has 2 aspects, physical and mental. Untrue, we have a third aspect, spiritual, an ephemeral part of us that we cannot ordinarly access, a soul if you will. God is a one-hundred percent spiritual being, therefore, we will probably never be able to empirically detect his existence because we have such a poor understanding of this aspect of our being.
The problem is that life itself is not proof of God. It's proof of a causitive agent - but not a supernatural one. Even though the odds against life are astronomically large, so is the universe. i.e. if you roll a million-sided dice a trillion times, you're going to get a large number of hits.
The spiritual aspect can be seen as the mental aspect - spirituality is just another way of saying how we explore our own existence, and the terms in which we do so. As such, this can be done by many means - science, philosophy, religion, or a combination of these (and many more ways, I'd imagine).
The existence of a soul is unprovable - obviously so - and even if we posses what could be termed as a 'uniqueness', it doesn't imply a supreme being - just another aspect of the creation of life that we do not understand.
-
There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument. The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist. A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".
My point was that we are reaching the point where we can observe the entire physical world. Based on what we have observed, no God exists then. I admit that the arguement only favors agnosticism. (Although you now seem to be argueing that God is a natural phenomenon.)
However, I do not think you will be able to refute my other arguement about why a supernatural God cannot exist.
Other statements: You simply state what you think/believe in and give me no reason why. Please, explain.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
My point was that we are reaching the point where we can observe the entire physical world. Based on what we have observed, no God exists then. I admit that argue only favors agnosticism. (Although you now seem to be argueing that God is a natural phenomenon.)
However, I do not think you will be able to refute my other arguement about why a supernatural God cannot exist.
Other statements: You simply state what you think/believe in and give me no reason why. Please, explain.
I don't think that's necessarilly true - we only know what we can observe, not necesarrily what lies below that. Like at the subatomic level, for example (where the standard model is based around an unproven, theoretical particle(?) called the Higgs Boson, IIRC).
From a loose - religious - definition, you could say 'God is the world'... so what we can and cannot observe isn't a way to disprove or prove God. That's why these arguments will go round and round and circles till the cows come home :)
-
Well, yeah, but what can't be observed can still be infered by showing certain particles will only behave the way they are observed to behave if a certain other particle exists, even if that particle can't be seen. If it cannot be observed/infered (directly/indirectly), then it makes no sense to say that a certain thing exists.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument. The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist. A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".
I challenge this statement, there is proof that God exists looking at your monitor and sitting in your chair right now. Life is proof that God exists, you can argue statistics and "proof" all you want, but the odds are astronomically against life forming and developing the way you suggest. With odds like that, it would suggest that we are unique in the Universe and it's googleplexes of cubic parsecs, I refuse to accept that.
A second flaw in the statement that Man only has 2 aspects, physical and mental. Untrue, we have a third aspect, spiritual, an ephemeral part of us that we cannot ordinarly access, a soul if you will. God is a one-hundred percent spiritual being, therefore, we will probably never be able to empirically detect his existence because we have such a poor understanding of this aspect of our being.
actualy the most acurate way of stateing the evedence is "We have not currently detected a God or gods, includeing no evedence nesesitateing the exsistence thereof, therefore one or more deities should be assumed not to exist untill such time as the exsistence there of can be confirmed"
you make quite a jump going from I exsist to God exsists, science does not work this way. I don't care if you think this way and have no problem with you makeing what to me seem like idiotic leaps, it's your life do as you will. but _if_ you intend to convince others who do not already believe the same as you, you are going to have to break your line of reasoning down to a leavel, that I'm not sure you are capable of.
you have no evedence of a supernatural, furthermore you have set your self up to fail by practicly defineing super natural as that wich cannot be detected scientificly, trying to prove to people who's understanding of the world is dirived entierly by scientific reasoning that there is something that scientific understanding cannot reach is as imposable as proveing to you that there is no God.
I sudgest that you let us be, you go do your thing and let us do ours.
-
I think the whole bit about science being able to observe the world and such is irrelevant.
Without an object being observable (Observable does not mean "possible with current technology/understanding" here, supernatural things can't be observed no matter how omniscient you are in the natural world) we can't say it exists. That's silly.
No matter how much science progresses, we can't observe God. That's not to say religion beats science, it means religious people are silly folks who think an impossible thing exists somehow and then flames science for not being able to do anything about it. That's like asking a hippo to go supernova.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
That's like asking a hippo to go supernova.
I tell you what, that was a hell of a night at the safari park....
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Well, yeah, but what can't be observed can still be infered by showing certain particles will only behave the way they are observed to behave if a certain other particle must exist, even if that particle can't be seen. If it cannot be observed/infered (directly/indirectly), then it makes no sense to say that a certain thing exists.
Well, technology is still advancing, for one thing. There's also an issue in that what we can infer, can be based on a different set of rules to those operating - i.e. the laws of physics, IIRC, differ at a subatomic level - particles can influence others situated miles away (apparently breaking the speed of light to do so). I.e. as we delve deeper, we'll probably discover new rules, new ways to observe and infer, etc.
So what we can infer, at a level deeper than that which can be actively observed / explained, may be incorrect simply because we don't know all the rules. IIRC, there are still many debatable aspects of the rules we do know for these inferences - I think that how gravity works is still to be fully understood by the current subatomic models.
So to say that we can now see everything we ever will be able to, is almost certainly wrong.
-
Which is why I said cannot instead of is not.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Which is why I said cannot instead of is not.
k. But you'd agree that we can't see or infer 'everything' at present or in the near future?
-
Yes, but it must be possible to eventually do so.
-
aldo_14: they hypothesised the Higgs Boson based upon the logical need need for it in light of other known particles - guess what - last spring the detected the Higgs Boson -- and confirmed their results
-
A long read, but here we go:
look like Douglas Adams was on to something :wtf: :wtf:
original article http://www.twm.co.nz/hologram.html
In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.
To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.
When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.
Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.
A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.
To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.
Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.
As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.
When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.
This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.
According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.
Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.
In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.
The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.
Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.
In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order.
At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.
What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from bluY whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".
Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.
Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.
In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.
Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.
Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.
Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through ome gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly.
Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with ever other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.
The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through he senses into the inner world of our perceptions.
An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.
Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability.
Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.
Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support.
It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected.
Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.
But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?
Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.
Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.
In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.
It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.
In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic blue öyster cult, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head.
What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal.
The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.
Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.
In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.
Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.
As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.
The holographic prardigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.
Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.
Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as "reality".
Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.
Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection.
Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.
If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.
What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.
Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.
Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".
-
:eek2: I actually read it... wow
-
:eek2: and wow are the only emotions I can think of for that.
-
I knew about the aspect experiment for a while, but nothing like this...
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
:eek2: and wow are the only emotions I can think of for that.
-
or... the electrons could just have some sort off odd Quantum bond
while that is an interesting read, and worthy of further study, I'd say that's an example of takeing a slight leap.
also they provide examples of things that we have no documented proof of. like the trees disapearing, if that were real it'd have been well documented.
-
If it's proven... I don't know what to say, I'm really in shock. Why isn't it taken seriously yet. A regular person wouldn't hear this on the news or anything. Why?
-
Going back to the earlier discussion on empathy and pack instinct, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the classic example of the pack: Wolves.
-
Einstein talked about the "Spooky action at a distance" - this is something i know about
that crackpot's [the guy posted in here] ideas are non sequitur
-
Ah, I heard about those experiments actually. I paid attention during the quantum physics part of chemistry. :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
or... the electrons could just have some sort off odd Quantum bond
while that is an interesting read, and worthy of further study, I'd say that's an example of takeing a slight leap.
Yup. Take this with a grain of salt folks. Its worthy of some thought, and investigation if you're a scientist, but thats all. Its a theory, and the people who formulated the theory admit that. It may prove to be true, it may prove to be false, and it may prove to be partially true. We have not yet found a good solid theory of physics that can explain away all the inconsistancies and exceptions that we have observed, so that means we have a ways to go yet, so this may all be perfectly logical and easily explained, we just don't have the proper theory yet.
-
Science is the practice of skepticism, which means that any new theory, including this, should be approached with the utmost skepticism.
yes, I realize that I just said skepticism twice. Well, thrice now.
-
Rather interesting article. May or may not be true, but if nothing else, it serves one purpose. It causes you to think.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: they hypothesised the Higgs Boson based upon the logical need need for it in light of other known particles - guess what - last spring the detected the Higgs Boson -- and confirmed their results
That's slightly incorrect - they detected evidence of it ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546973.stm ) - but at the very edge of the LEPs range.
It's controversial. The data is possibly indicative, but it needs confirmation," said Bryan Webber, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge.
"Its mass is right at the maximum energy they could run the [LEP] at. But the indirect indications are that the Higgs boson should be close to that value."
So it's not conclusively found - yet. Point being, when it was postulated there was no way of nothing if it was right. The standard model - in terms of mass - was defined by something which was unproven. Likely, yes (it would have to be) - but unproven.
EDIT; also http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995095 , which I just found. NB: I'm not saying for a second that I don;t believe the Higgs Boson exists or anything - I'm not qualified to - just that we didn't know when the Standard Model was conceived.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: perhaps to _you_ but i am adhering strictly to the rules of logic (ie what we've been working on the refinement of for 1000+ years and have a very stable self-evident ruleset now)
if you have been trained in Logic (capital L should noted) then rationality and irrationality are _NOT_ subjective - neither should they EVER be
once again this is a matter of people's personal opinion being trumped by facts
No, it's a fact that when people's opinions differ on a subject that it is indeed subjective. ANd my opinion differs on the subject therefor its PER DEFINITION subjective.
Even your so precious logic is subjective. That logic is not the same as everyone else's. Just because you're the one that learned it this way doesn't mean everyone else has to embrace it as well.
Logic is a POV, a stance you take. From that stance it's easier to see the facts buit not everything can be defined in facts.
Actually, everything is subjective besides stuff like 1+1=2 and proven things. Logic has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A few hundred years ago logic was very different from the logic we use today. Perhaps in a few centuries the logic that you use today will be so outdated people would laugh at you if you used it.
I agree that your Logic is a great asset to assertaining facts, but it's not in the farthest reaches absolute.
Seriously, you need to learn to see the other side of things. you cannot make a clear judgement when you only see your side of the story.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Actually, everything is subjective besides stuff like 1+1=2 and proven things.
1+1=2, except for certain values of 2...
-
Originally posted by Ace
1+1=2, except for certain values of 2...
Heh, even the value of 2 is subjective :p
-
I read somewhere that if you put the masses of two blackholes together, the result would be smaller than a simple addition :p and conclusion was that in that case 1+1<2 :p
-
Only if you are making these calculations based on reality close to a singularity or two, which doesn't happen on earth very often ;)
-
This just goes to prove that everything is subjective. Even logic.
though i doubt much logic would survive two black holes... :p
-
Well, my logic is kind of a black hole too :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
This just goes to prove that everything is subjective. Even logic.
though i doubt much logic would survive two black holes... :p
I'd say it's more from where you start from. Truth will always be truth. Truth is exclusive. Truth cannot be false. However what we think truth is may be false. But again, it doesn't mean it's true.
Now I'm not the best thinker, but I'd like to think I can think through stuff logically. Now Kazan and I start from different points. I start by saying there is a God, Kazan says there isn't. Since we cannot 'prove' that God exists or not, both these assumtions are faith. Now Kazan may be thinking I'm one of those 6 day creationist. I can assure I am not. Infact I don't know what to think on the subject other then God created it all. People who think that a long creation time (more then 6 days) is contrary to an all-powerful God are nuts. 6 days is to long for an all-powerful God. Hell, 6 seconds is to long!
If all the exsits is the material world then it must be infinite. Don't say 'but what about the Big Bang?' What about it? Where did the material for what made up the thing that banged come from?
Now about infinite. Let's take two sets of numbers. Set A will have all odd and even numbers. Set B will have only odd numbers. Now both are infinite, however logic would say that Set A would be twice as large as Set B. But as stated both sets go off into the infinite! This example is to show that the infinite can only exist in our heads, and to go a step farther, the super-natural. Because if the world (anything material) is finite, it had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beggining, it had to have had a creator that is infinite (a being that has no first cause, always existed).
-
Kaz : To exclude anything because it doesn't fit in with how you think the universe should work is no better in science than it is in religion :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
To exclude anything because it doesn't fit in with how you think the universe should work is no better in science than it is in religion :)
Dude, what the hell did I just finish writing about truth? Truth is objective. If truth is subjective, the truth that truth is subjective is subjective.
-
And was I talking to you? Since you are talking about religion, and I mentioned science I thought would be obvious this was for Kazan, but I'll put a little note at the top of my post :)
Oh, and lighten up :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
And was I talking to you? Since you are talking about religion, and I mentioned science I thought would be obvious this was for Kazan, but I'll put a little note at the top of my post :)
Oh, and lighten up :)
I see, sorry about that.
-
No problemo :D
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now Kazan and I start from different points. I start by saying there is a God, Kazan says there isn't. Since we cannot 'prove' that God exists or not, both these assumtions are faith.
Incorrect on two counts - I start from _no_ position and look at the data available -- No evidence for existance of diety, no logical need for deity to exist leads me to logically not belief
Lack of belief is not faith - because faith is belief without evidence.
You cannot have faith if you have no belief.
Your error is your _start_ from a position
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now Kazan may be thinking I'm one of those 6 day creationist. I can assure I am not. Infact I don't know what to think on the subject other then God created it all. People who think that a long creation time (more then 6 days) is contrary to an all-powerful God are nuts. 6 days is to long for an all-powerful God. Hell, 6 seconds is to long!
you theists can fight amongst yourself over that
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
If all the exsits is the material world then it must be infinite. Don't say 'but what about the Big Bang?' What about it? Where did the material for what made up the thing that banged come from?
the material world could be finite, but all the matter in it concentrated into a single glob at point some
Originally aposted by HotSnoJ
Now about infinite. Let's take two sets of numbers. Set A will have all odd and even numbers. Set B will have only odd numbers. Now both are infinite, however logic would say that Set A would be twice as large as Set B. But as stated both sets go off into the infinite! This example is to show that the infinite can only exist in our heads, and to go a step farther, the super-natural. Because if the world (anything material) is finite, it had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beggining, it had to have had a creator that is infinite (a being that has no first cause, always existed).
non sequitur - "infinite" is an arbitrarily large number, not a thing
supernatural is a thing
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Kaz : To exclude anything because it doesn't fit in with how you think the universe should work is no better in science than it is in religion :)
It has no evidence, it has no logical need -- from the universe we've observed - and we've observed it pretty darn well thus far
No Evidence, No Logical Support means No Belief
-
According to your logic, it is stupid to believe that there are other lifeforms in the Universe except us. We have seen no evidence whatsoever to indicate that any other form of life exists. A lack of evidence can mean one of three things.
1. There is no evidence because we have not yet found it.
2. The evidence is there, but we cannot recognize it for what it is, due to the limitations and faults of our scientific theories.
3. There is no evidence because the theory is false.
Until somehting has been disproven, it must at the very least be regarded as possible.
-
wrong Rictor -- there is solid logic supporting the the probability of the existance of other lifeforms in the universe based upon known phenomena
there is a difference between "Regarding as possible" and being rational to believe
-
I'm not even gonna bother. Kazan, I'm not meaning to insult you by saying this but you are the science fundy as a counterpart to a Religious fundy. You refuse to open your mind to other possibilities.
And i hate both with all my heart. :p
-
well said.
Everything in moderation, including logic. Irrationality is a fundamental
part of what makes a human a human. Balance, thats the key.
-
Tiara: "open my mind to other posibilities" screw you, only the weak and pathetic debator resorts to argumentum ad hominem - YOU JUST DID
Iti s because my mind is OPEN and I follow OBJECTIVE PROCESSES that I am atheist, and see religion as irrational
-
Rictor: I have balance - logic for the realm of logic, emotion for the realm of emotion - I do not let them cross to where they do not belong
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: "open my mind to other posibilities" screw you, only the weak and pathetic debator resorts to argumentum ad hominem - YOU JUST DID
Iti s because my mind is OPEN and I follow OBJECTIVE PROCESSES that I am atheist, and see religion as irrational
Now who's sad? You're the one sprouting the insults. Now vthat's argumentum ad hominem. Not really debator like, now is it, mr 'Look-at-me-I'm so-smart'? ;) Seriously, you're a sad sad man.
Ow, and just for the record, I'm an atheist too... I just don't exclude the possibility. And you are not just an atheist. You're agnostic atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in it but doesn't outright deny the very slim possibility of a god. You do. hence the agnostic part.
-
Tiara: i was merely replying to your argumentum ad hominem - an attack I have _ZERO_ patience for
You keep saying I "exclude the possibility" and you're _wrong_ -- it's possible, however intesmminally imporbably - HOWEVER that doesn't change the fact that it is irrational to believe without evidence
-
I specifically said in a previous post that you don't have to believe in it, just don't outright dismiss it like you have done in this thread. But you seem to not read my post very carefully. Once you call something irrational you no longer have an open mind to it.
And since you call everything that has 0 evidence either way irrational, you don't have an open mind to it.
-
Tiara: they are IRRATIONAL BY THE FRAGGING DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL
perhaps for you your statemnt is true - however my the main definition of irrational, the one i use - stands upon OBJECTIVE PROCESSES that I adhere to very strictly
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now about infinite. Let's take two sets of numbers. Set A will have all odd and even numbers. Set B will have only odd numbers. Now both are infinite, however logic would say that Set A would be twice as large as Set B. But as stated both sets go off into the infinite! This example is to show that the infinite can only exist in our heads, and to go a step farther, the super-natural. Because if the world (anything material) is finite, it had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beggining, it had to have had a creator that is infinite (a being that has no first cause, always existed).
You're grossly misusing the mathematical concepts of finite and infinite. :doubt:
Set A is not, logically, twice as large as Set B. Both are of aleph-null cardinality. You can try to match numbers from Set A to Set B and you will always have numbers in Set B to match to Set A. Same the other way around.
If you take the set of real numbers and the set of natural numbers, there you have a clear cardinal difference. The real numbers are of aleph-1 cardinality. There's a very neat justification of this (diagonal theorem) but I won't get into that.
-
Of course, that's the interesting thing about faith. It's great for blowing away paradoxes.
A favorite amoung coffeehouse-intellectuals who like to give me a hard time about believing in something that, by their definition, does not exist is:
"If God can do anything, could he* make a rock he* couldn't throw?". I love this one.
The answer, imho, is "yes". Any paradoxes created by this are kind of pointless, save those who want to bring logic into it.
What's that line in Hitchiker's Guide? Oh yes, 'Not impossible, just very very improbable".
* - I use 'he' out of habit, not belief.
-
It doesn't "blow away" paradoxes. It just blindly ignores them.
-
It is a paradox. It's a way of explaining how everything started that doesn't explain how God started.
Which simply puts you back to square one. :D
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
It doesn't "blow away" paradoxes. It just blindly ignores them.
It does. Faith is a bridge between a definable, limited reality and an undefined, unlimited reality where anything is possible. Hence, paradoxes become meaningless. You have the freedom to explore possibilities without the chains of logic.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It is a paradox. It's a way of explaining how everything started that doesn't explain how God started.
Which simply puts you back to square one. :D
Or onto a different playing field. Ask yourself, assuming the origin of God(dess. whatever) can be determined in some way that would be relevant to the human mind (ho ho ho), beyond being a made-up fictional character or whatever, what is the practical value in such knowledge beyond simply "knowing"?
-
We could become gods ourselves or make other gods... or find a way to kill god. If we don't know what that knowledge is, we can't see the exact pratical values of them now, can we? :p
-
Originally posted by ionia23
It does. Faith is a bridge between a definable, limited reality and an undefined, unlimited reality where anything is possible. Hence, paradoxes become meaningless. You have the freedom to explore possibilities without the chains of logic.
Are you a Christian? Or do you have your own beliefs on a higher power?
I'm just curious.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
"If God can do anything, could he* make a rock he* couldn't throw?". I love this one.
and the question is completely pointless
there is a reason why i don't ask such questions
-
That is because you are as close to a machine as humans can be Kazan.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Are you a Christian? Or do you have your own beliefs on a higher power? I'm just curious.
I was at one point. Then I took a course in college called "The History Of Western Religions" which was taught, coincidentally, by an atheist. I'll never forget this little nugget of knowledge:
"Whether or not you believe is meaningless to this course, but you cannot deny the power force religion has played in the development of what we now call modern civilization".
The course studied the development of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
Imagine my surprise when I read "Gilgamesh". I pretty much got my entire belief structure shattered. All the things I took for granted as being "truth" were levelled.
Then I found myself dating a witch for 2 years.
End result? I ended up with even stronger faith than I had before. my spiritual beliefs are a wierd mixture of probably six different faiths. The christians would call me a "heretic".
I call myself a pagan-christian. It seems to hold up so far. No one to date has been able to break it.
Besides, what have I got to lose, ya know?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
and the question is completely pointless
there is a reason why i don't ask such questions
Oh I bet there is.
-
01001100 01001111 01001100 00100000 00111010 01001000 01010
01010011 01101000 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110101 01110000
-
:lol: :lol: ROTFL:lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: "open my mind to other posibilities" screw you, only the weak and pathetic debator resorts to argumentum ad hominem - YOU JUST DID
Iti s because my mind is OPEN and I follow OBJECTIVE PROCESSES that I am atheist, and see religion as irrational
Having an open mind is not what you do or don't belive, but what you understand of those. You aren't willing to accept or understand the reasons why people have religious beliefs - so your mind is closed to understanding them.
Trying to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes - it doesn;t work, it isn't big, and it isn't clever. If you really want to refute this, then give your reaosning, your logic. Otherwise it just looks like you've decided what is right, and come up with a suitably vague excuse to disparage the rest.
-
aldo_14: I perfectly understand _why_ people are religious and that makes it all the more despicable
"try to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes" well excuse the **** out of me for being more educated than you and able to cite the exact name of a logical fallacy - whether I cite the name in the proper latin or a translation to english it's still a logical fallacy commited by the other person
The Fact is: I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVIATIONS PERFECTLY, AND I FIND THEM DEPLORABLE
-
Could you repeat that? I didn't quite catch it the first time.
-
it's ASCII expressed in binary
"LOL :D 01010
Shut up"
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: I perfectly understand _why_ people are religious and that makes it all the more despicable
"try to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes" well excuse the **** out of me for being more educated than you and able to cite the exact name of a logical fallacy - whether I cite the name in the proper latin or a translation to english it's still a logical fallacy commited by the other person
The Fact is: I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVIATIONS PERFECTLY, AND I FIND THEM DEPLORABLE
Translation: "My arguments are utter cack no matter the subject, so I go out of my way to appear more intelligent than I really am. This is just me acting out all my suppressed anger over being beaten up in school all the time. Could someone pass me a napkin to cry in?"
Crikey, Mr. I've-Got-To-Get-To-Boston, address his arguments already.
-
you people are hopeless - you cannot win so you start throwing feces.
-
Kazan, you've been "throwing feces" for a while now, so don't start being a hypocrite.
-
*content deleted*
-
*shakes head*
Think it's time to start shutting down people... iona, that was not necessary at all
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
*shakes head*
Think it's time to start shutting down people... iona, that was not necessary at all
Accepted and removed. My apologies.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Kazan, you've been "throwing feces" for a while now, so don't start being a hypocrite.
Yes, pointing out tautologies is such throwing of feces
-
Red pill or blue pill, guys - you decide. Blue pill, and this gets locked, never to be revived. Red pill, and we resume the discussion on a much more mature note than is being displayed be certain parties.
-
[size=235234]BLUE PILL![/size]
:D
(j/k) :p
-
Personally I think this thread needs:
DAMITOL: The Green Pill
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: I perfectly understand _why_ people are religious and that makes it all the more despicable
"try to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes" well excuse the **** out of me for being more educated than you and able to cite the exact name of a logical fallacy - whether I cite the name in the proper latin or a translation to english it's still a logical fallacy commited by the other person
The Fact is: I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVIATIONS PERFECTLY, AND I FIND THEM DEPLORABLE
a) What are my motivations?
b) being able to phrase an argument in a clear and logical manner - i.e. in the preferred language of this boards - is equally as important as throwing about latin quotes in the obvious hope of trying to confuse people / look a smart-arse. At least I can say I've always tried to explain the fundamental basis of my own arguments - you haven't insofar as I can see, and you haven't responded to those questions that have been asked.
So i'll ask again - what is your 'understanding' of this issue? What are 'the rules of logic' you are using, and how are you applying them? Why do / how can you 'loathe' a belief structure - is is simply because you don't subscribe to it?
NB: what exactly does 'excuse the **** out of me' mean? Does that mean you're admitting **** is coming out of you? (hopefully from the biologically natural areas of the body, otherwise I'd see a doctor :p)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
a) What are my motivations?
The basic motivation of all humans is obtain happiness, most humans have no learned that truth is worth more than happiness, or have not learned to seperate their emotions from their critical thinking.
Either way the first one leads to the second one - and therefore they both interfere with your ability to make rational decisions. This is the primary fundamental motiviation for people to be religious.
Now I probably hear and objection about "but some good scientists are religious!" This is due to the process of compartmentalization. A certain area of your knowledge/consciousness is partitioned in your mind and one refuses to apply critical thinking to it. This is partially enabled by the fact that most people are indoctrinated before they are capable of critically thinking, most people are almost completely incapable of total and complete reconstruction o their thought processes by the time they learn critical thinking, if they ever truely learn it.
Originally posted by aldo_14
b) being able to phrase an argument in a clear and logical manner - i.e. in the preferred language of this boards - is equally as important as throwing about latin quotes in the obvious hope of trying to confuse people / look a smart-arse. At least I can say I've always tried to explain the fundamental basis of my own arguments - you haven't insofar as I can see, and you haven't responded to those questions that have been asked.
Excuse me?! "In obvious hope of trying to confuse people" BULL**** - when I say someone has commited a logical fallacy, and named that logical fallacy - it means they commited a logical fallacy and that's simple - if you don't like me using the proper terminology - TOUGH ****
You clearly haven't even been reading this thread the fundamental basis of my arguments is quite clear. Tiara commited an argumentum ad hominem (for the petulenetly undereducated: "Attack against the person") and so are you.
Originally posted by aldo_14
So i'll ask again - what is your 'understanding' of this issue? What are 'the rules of logic' you are using, and how are you applying them? Why do / how can you 'loathe' a belief structure - is is simply because you don't subscribe to it?
A) I have been debating this issue for 8 years, I have an intiminate knowledge of the human pyschology involved, the neurochemistry behind that psychology, the evidential status of all subjects uinvolved in this issue
B) There is only one set of the rules of Logic - it's the ones they would have taught you in university had you listened [in some better educated areas like mine you tend to learn them in high school]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Philosophical_logic
C) I loath any belief structure in which the person takes pleasant lies over boring reality. I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to something fervently without evidence. I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to elements that are directly disproven by evidence.
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: what exactly does 'excuse the **** out of me' mean? Does that mean you're admitting **** is coming out of you? (hopefully from the biologically natural areas of the body, otherwise I'd see a doctor :p)
Hardy Har har - you know exactly what I mean - excuse me for using the proper nommeclature of Logic in my application of logic
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The basic motivation of all humans is obtain happiness, most humans have no learned that truth is worth more than happiness, or have not learned to seperate their emotions from their critical thinking.
Either way the first one leads to the second one - and therefore they both interfere with your ability to make rational decisions. This is the primary fundamental motiviation for people to be religious.
Now I probably hear and objection about "but some good scientists are religious!" This is due to the process of compartmentalization. A certain area of your knowledge/consciousness is partitioned in your mind and one refuses to apply critical thinking to it. This is partially enabled by the fact that most people are indoctrinated before they are capable of critically thinking, most people are almost completely incapable of total and complete reconstruction o their thought processes by the time they learn critical thinking, if they ever truely learn it.
I don't believe that answers the question - what is my[/b] motivation?
Originally posted by Kazan
Excuse me?! "In obvious hope of trying to confuse people" BULL**** - when I say someone has commited a logical fallacy, and named that logical fallacy - it means they commited a logical fallacy and that's simple - if you don't like me using the proper terminology - TOUGH ****
You clearly haven't even been reading this thread the fundamental basis of my arguments is quite clear. Tiara commited an argumentum ad hominem (for the petulenetly undereducated: "Attack against the person") and so are you.
If you are as intelligent as I assume you are, you would no doubt be aware that latin is a dead and little taught language in most schools / eduaction systems. Thus, it would be obvious that using what is to most an untranslatable phrase - a cliche even - would be an obvious barrier between clear and unambigous communication.
Originally posted by Kazan
A) I have been debating this issue for 8 years, I have an intiminate knowledge of the human pyschology involved, the neurochemistry behind that psychology, the evidential status of all subjects uinvolved in this issue
Debating or researching? And if you your position has not changed in 8 years, and is as - how shall I say - extreme as it is, how could you draw an unbiased opinion?
Originally posted by Kazan
B) There is only one set of the rules of Logic - it's the ones they would have taught you in university had you listened [in some better educated areas like mine you tend to learn them in high school]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Philosophical_logic
Oh, an insult on my intelligence. That's very effective - are you hopingthat will make some sort of a point? Thankfully, I'm not so vain is to respond to such petty and - dare I say - immature name-calling.
Wis it that allows you to make generalised judgements about the ducation systems in another country? (without, may i add, any evidence to support it). And what stage, exactly, of your education are you at?
(NB: philosophy is not a fundamental part of any CS course I know of - and if you're saying that you're phrasing this logic in mathematical terms...well, that's just silly, because your not dealing with absolute sentences).
I note that you still have yet to illustrate your reasoning with regard to these rules.
Originally posted by Kazan
C) I loath any belief structure in which the person takes pleasant lies over boring reality. I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to something fervently without evidence. I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to elements that are directly disproven by evidence.
Well, what aspects are definitively disproven by evidence? Backing this up would be very useful in forming your argument (i.e. with sources) - especially if you can show that this evidence is not tainted by your opinion.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't believe that answers the question - what is my motivation?[/B]
exactly as stated
Originally posted by aldo_14
If you are as intelligent as I assume you are, you would no doubt be aware that latin is a dead and little taught language in most schools / eduaction systems. Thus, it would be obvious that using what is to most an untranslatable phrase - a cliche even - would be an obvious barrier between clear and unambigous communication.
ooh booo hooo, boo hoo
it's still used for the official nomeclature of quite a few things, logic included
Originally posted by aldo_14
Debating or researching? And if you your position has not changed in 8 years, and is as - how shall I say - extreme as it is, how could you draw an unbiased opinion?
Questioning my objectivity is the ultimate insult
furthermore my opinion has changed - i have grown to despise your side more due to their fanatacism.
Yes it's so extreme to say "if you believe in something with no evidence your'e irrational" (def of irrational) and "people who base their worldview off irrationality are dangerous" (quite obvious and easily demonstrated)
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, an insult on my intelligence. That's very effective - are you hopingthat will make some sort of a point? Thankfully, I'm not so vain is to respond to such petty and - dare I say - immature name-calling.
I was merely being specific - you like to insult my intelligence a lot though so "pot calling kettle"
Originally posted by aldo_14
Wis it that allows you to make generalised judgements about the ducation systems in another country? (without, may i add, any evidence to support it). And what stage, exactly, of your education are you at?
going through the motions to get a degree to which I already know the entire course content for
Originally posted by aldo_14
(NB: philosophy is not a fundamental part of any CS course I know of - and if you're saying that you're phrasing this logic in mathematical terms...well, that's just silly, because your not dealing with absolute sentences).
I note that you still have yet to illustrate your reasoning with regard to these rules.
philosophical and mathematical logic are extensinos of the same thing, and I am extremely well versed in _BOTH_
If you are unable to see the illustration of _my_ reasoning then uo haven't even been reading this thread
furthermore - I am taking the negative proposition position - ie questioning someone elses positive proposition (ie their claim that something exists) - the Burdeon of Proof rests ton the knees of the pro-goddists
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, what aspects are definitively disproven by evidence? Backing this up would be very useful in forming your argument (i.e. with sources) - especially if you can show that this evidence is not tainted by your opinion.
here comes a small sample
Creationism -> Disproven
Great Flood -> Disproven
Flat Earth -> Disproven
Earth Center Of universe -> Disproven
Most of the "morals" -> Illogical in light of modern psychological knowledge, medical knowledge, etc
Certain morals - such as antihomosexuality -> completely and totally troglodytic
-
-- Admins I apologize in advance --
ionia - you didn't quite clean up after yourself
Here is something I have ABSOLUTELY NO TOLERANCE FOR
Translation: "My arguments are utter cack no matter the subject, so I go out of my way to appear more intelligent than I really am. This is just me acting out all my suppressed anger over being beaten up in school all the time. Could someone pass me a napkin to cry in?"
Crikey, Mr. I've-Got-To-Get-To-Boston, address his arguments already.
This sounds like exactly the type of response I expect out of immature irrational children who have too little of an education
listen ass**** - excuse the hell out of me for using the official nomeclature of logic.
IT'S ****ING COMPLIMENT THAT I PRESUME YOU ARE EDUCATED ENUOGH AND SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND ME -- Clearly you have demonstrated that my presumption was incorrect. That is pretty much the only thing I will presume, but i know full well that this is exactly the type of behavior that is coming from the likes of you.
you are unable to win your argument, so soon as I use a word you don't understand you're like "OMG! he's trying to sound intelligent! *orgasm of idiocy ensues"
Get over yourself. YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT, YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL, YOU WERE NOT CREATED WITH A PURPOSE
You are an immature and undereducated halfwit to whom I will no longer have any patience.
You are an irrational little child
-
Questioning my objectivity is the ultimate insult
But it's true. You refuse to take any different POV then your own. That means you are biased and thus cannot be objective.
As for your last post; it just goes to show that you are the one lacking debating qualities. That post was one big argumentum ad hominem. You attacked him personally because you didn't agree with him. this is the mark of a bad debater and an unobjective person.
Seriously, kazan, you are amongst the worst on this board when it comes to debating. You are at the same level as a religious fundy. :ick:
-
The hell with pills.