A****** is a bad word?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by S.A.M., Dec 21, 2007.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    Sorry - I guess I made the assumption that if you were posting criticisms of my posts in response to the thread topic you were talking in a meaningful way
    guess you are still a few marks short of sincere inquiry
    ok - perhaps we could research both marzipan and leprechauns separately to see if either of them warrant serious contemplation

    certainly makes analysis possible (as opposed to a wild array of chat forum posts)

    Do you post in religious threads? Yes
    Do you host a website dedicated to decrying religion? Yes

    Its not clear what I am not understanding

    I wasn't aware that science is diametrically opposed to religion
    or is that another one of your beliefs?
    and you don't strike me as the religious type - or for that matter the type capable of launching serious philosophical issues

    seems like you have also asserted a few things by self imposed repetition
    who will resolve these things?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    It's more like an observation. Science sets its standard as one of observable, testable, measurable phenomena. Religion sets its standard as one of hearsay (jesus said... BAM! An entire faith is born...) and unquestioned dogma (jesus said...).

    Just using jesus as an archetypical religious entity. Same goes for the rest of them.

    Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    Anyway, different subject.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    This is about the inherently bigoted nature of Sura109. Like I said, it’s like referring to Africans as niggers at a Klan rally and then turning around and saying "aren’t you proud to be nigger?" This is different then IceT, an African, saying nigga in rap song.

    When "unbelievers" are portrayed as someone good and fair-minded the bigoted nature was lost but then you pick people who happen to have been notorious atheists. Why?

    I didn't even say the person had to be an atheist, just a fair minded person who has no belief at all the there is an Allah or that Mohammad was anyone other than a guy who heard voices in his head. A Buddhist is an unbeliever, The DaliLama may be an "Unbeleiver", a Hindu is an unbeliever, a Shinto is an unbeliever, A Scientologist、lots of people meet the definition of a Mohammadian-unbeliever.

    Does the Qur’an ever spend a good chunk of time saying the unbeliever is also a fair minded level headed good and nobel individual worthy of your respect and should be treated fairly and equally? Does the Qur’an ever say that the unbeliever may actually be right? Does the Qur’an even say that the unbeliever may even be a better person than the believer? Spend more time helping the poor and donate more money to charity than the believer - only do it out of pure humanistic kindness? Does the Qur’an ever say that we are all humans and should all be treated equally in regards to our individual beliefs?

    This book of your is so good at inspiring predjudice that you don`t even know it when you see it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Nicely put.

    Only, I think there's evidence that shows believers to be a bit more charitable than us crumudgeonly non believers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Maybe is to help ensure they don't go to hell or valhalla or whatever. Don't know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    to begin with, I think you have caricaturized religion by calling it hearsay, since (most) religion comes with in depth philosophy (which most people, including practitioners, tend to gloss over)

    BTW the only claims of science that I have encountered that are at odds with the claims in the vedas, are those scientific claims that are neither observable, testable, and measurable (eg macro-evolution, quite a large portion of archeology, abiogenesis, etc)

    IOW the notion that everything can be materially reduced also has a "BAM!" like quality about it
     
  9. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Well, while I don't like to be the one to have to point out your dishonesty, perhaps you should go back and see what I was responding to - namely your naive assertions that someone that does not play golf would not talk about golf - which, needless to say, wasn't actually related to the OP in any way. Don't take my word for it, take yours.. few pages back. Thanks bye.

    However, what this does do is indicate that you have a reading problem. Stop making assumptions, read posts. Thanks bye.

    What's the next excuse? I ask and I'm not being sincere, I try and I'm not being genuine. Will you do anything to avoid answering? It certainly seems that way.

    Can you kindly show me what, in the above, is answer to any of my questions? Thanks.

    Look at the question once more and then answer. Once you can comprehend the question you'll see that your quoted statement is of no relevance.

    Yes, along with Star Trek threads. No, I do not have a belief in Klingons. Whatever is your point?

    ? Is religion science? Yes/no?

    But as established you don't read posts and when you do you don't understand them. Your statements are without worth. As you love argumentum ad populum I am happy to conduct a poll to see if anyone here actually thinks anything you say is worth the kilobytes used. What do you, (if you were to be honest), think the majority would answer? Does that say anything to you?

    According to you majority rules.
     
  10. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Really?

    Is not every religion based on the written testimony only of it's historical figures? Do they provide repeatable, objective, testable evidence that religion X and its claims are real phenomena? Deep philosophy dosen't mean that a thing is automatically vested with reality. Philosophy is not evidence, compelling or otherwise.

    Just wait...

    And it's not necessecarily the specific claims. It's more the philosophies that are at odds. See my previous post.

    Well, maybe it does. But it's at least a path that yields real objective results.

    When your religious ruminations result in anything other than ruminations and a bunch of people shouting the truth of it just because, we'll see.

    At the root of it all is hearsay. I don't think that trivializes it at all. The simplest of scientific statements can be tested and found to be true. Or not. What claim of a god(s) can even be tested? God is beyond nature and "empirical" investigation, right? So what do you have? Hearsay. As I said.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Snakelord
    :shrug: o...k ...
    as already mentioned - its obvious you would rather stab your testicles with an ice pick than apply any religious teaching, so its not clear who you are trying to kid
    well you are the one asking for a reasonable indication to what degree we should investigate an isolated claim that the proper use of marzipan can enable the perception of leprechauns
    its quite simple
    if a person has a serious claim to make they can write it down
    thats why they sometimes talk of scientific or philosophical "papers"
    (BTW such a paper tends to have a bit more of an organized format that a sporadic chat forum)

    anyway I don't really think that chat forums are the proper medium for presenting new ideas, but rather the discussing of pre-existing ones, so if I can't find any reference to what you claim beyond your posts here, you'll have to forgive me for finding better things to do with my time
    you probably post in star trek threads to assert your belief that star trek is good - much like you post in religious threads to assert your belief that religion/god is false
    (given that you probably mean ontological naturalism or classical empiricism when you say science) no
    a tub of yoghurt is also not a frilled neck lizard btw, but that doesn't make them diametrically opposed

    I didn't ask for a vote
    I asked for a single indication outside of your hearsay
    (and I am the one with the reading problem?)
    get back to me when you put your glasses on
    :shrug:
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Supe
    philosophy does however offer standards for ascertaining reality, and if you examine theistic claims you can also see that they come with the (philosophical) standards for testing the claims.

    As for testing what is "real", I guess that would require a standard definition (something empiricism has difficulty with since it works exclusively with relative terms, eg measurement)

    thats ok
    the issue is whether that path has the monopoly on all objective results
    If I can empty a bath tub full of water with a cup, does that mean I can also empty the ocean with it too?
    how do you empirically reduce lust or wrath?
    with benevolent pharmacists?
    only if a person applies themselves to the proper prerequisites for ascertaining knowledge (aka forensic scientists and janitors)

    classical empiricism requires that any claim can be met by appropriate training that enables the senses to work in an improved manner.
    The problem is that it cannot venture into subjects that exert a superior will to ours

    for instance, the existence of the president is not a classical empirical claim (since we receive knowledge of him second hand - television and newspapers)
    we do not (generally) see him in the flesh
    If I demanded to see the president there is no amount of training I can do with my senses that can enable me to get past the first of his 2000 secretaries and body guards.

    Seeing the president requires that I become submissive to him by sharing his needs, interests and concerns - simply because he has a greater will than me and I can only see him on his terms

    In the same way, perceiving the nature of god requires that one be submissive to him - this is why highly (empirically) intelligent persons can remain outside of understanding anything about god.
    They may say "there is no empirical evidence for god"
    but that simply says something about the limits of empiricism
     
  13. Donnal Registered Member

    Messages:
    638
    Robert Cooper myb ex
    was sent letters and pictures of angels and warnings they exist
    i was there when he showed this church he is involved in
    he asked Loraine his mate what was this about
    she replied she didnt know it wasnt sent from her church
    he know continues to ridicule me cause alot of people ask questions about me
    he told me hes sick of it all being about me
    i told him eventually about the accusation to do with angels
    he said i was mad
    he know has several diseases he is in constant pain every day of the rest of his life
    he went on and on how he can buy what ever he wants
    he said he can even murder and get away with it
    he also thinks money can buy his health and can buy love
    i said to him can u buy the love of an angel can they pull it out of their pocket and give it to u for a price
    he has no looks left hes very thin eyes are black around his sides of his eyes
    i told him he best get ready for a journey
    i think he closed his eyes to warnings and he paid the price

    i strongly believe people also who close their eyes will suffer greatly
    now he seems to listen to me only to do with his health
    i say its a bit late for changes in health wise but u can change for the better in urself
    if u cant see the warnings and its too late u can have sumthing else
    to help u ease pain a little
    when its too late its too late cant go back and change but u can change ur ways
    the horror of a world is within our selves not in the sky or space
    so to is heaven its how we carry our lies or truths
     
  14. Frud11 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    This thread (since i last looked) has gotten into the usual stuff, poste and riposte, but the above quote possibly sums up the areligious/theist argument nicely, and the paradox we (think we) see.

    Perceiving: experiencing, as in via a sensory or conscious direct "input", with a corresponding output; like a function with a domain and range. The thing about functions is that you can write down an endless number that all have the same domain and range, there's Euler's series which "converges" at e, the "function of numbers", its a fundamental property of measurement and counting. The output, in the case of a brain, is multi-valued, a kind of expansion.

    Submission is an idea that differs between cultures; here in the West, it's associated with the idea of authority and power, as in the "meet the chief" example given previously. In the East, it's about surrender, of desire and attachment to material things, and ultimately attachment to thought itself.

    An empirical experience of something which can't be thought about is paradoxical, but not impossible (I'm quite sure about this, even as I type it).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Conceptions, or thinking, about what God is, or what we can know about something "unknowable" (there's that word again), are also paradoxical.
    "To know something" is a phrase that has different meaning to an empiricist (perspective), and a "spiritualist" or non-intellectual, or doctrinist (perspective).
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I am not sure how this correlates to, say, perceiving the president
    there are numerous nuances on "submission" both in the east and the west.

    In the context of the president, I used it to suggest that being inimical, rebellious or antagonistic will not help you
    I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here


    I was suggesting that god is actually knowable and perceivable, much like the president is actually knowable and perceivable
    In other words, if god has qualities, then there is no reason why god cannot be knowable or perceivable
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I see you're point BUT also lets not forget that most Buddhists and Shinto would be classified as unbeleivers. They don't believe there is an Allah and they don't believe there was a Last Prophet known as Mohammad and they don't believe that the Qur'an is the Last and Perfect revelation to mankind. They are still charitable people.

    Michael
     
  17. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Yes.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Not always:

    So again, any consensus in a word for those who do not believe in God?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2007
  19. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Atheist.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thats a derogatory term. O atheists! for instance, is a segragationary term. Ask Michael. :shrug:
     
  21. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Even amongst theists there are many terms for people based on what they believe: christian, muslim, agnostic, etc.

    As Skinwalker shows, strictly speaking, you can't call people by what they are not.
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    when a group becomes socially predictable, it tends to indicate that they are something and that issues of belief are afoot

    Skinwalker tries to avoid this by calling upon his own individual position as the final complete object for examination - but the clear fact is that there are now and have been in the past a myriad of groups rallying around metaphysical claims in the name of atheism
     
  23. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Yet this requires that one already believes in God even prior to perceiving God.
     

Share This Page