Defining what is God.

Kenny

no
it means you have to get off your royal hind quaters and actually do something if you want to reap the benefits of applied or experiential knowledge

yes, until you come to the point of actually 'applying' knowledge there is no benefit intrying to understand it theoretically

the only difference is that there is no one making a claim of direct perception of a celestial teapot or a process that has granted success to others in directly perceiving it - this explains why people worship god and not celestial teapots by the way

“

its not clear how science is unbiased, since the waft and wane of empirical fabric is composed of one bias being proven as historically inferior to another

as for the wonder thingthere are heaps of scientists, of old and recent times who advocate a strong wonder of nature

"How can we avoid crying out, O god of miracles! How wonderful are all thy works! How beautiful are the ornaments! How well adapted the powers which thou hast so profusely bestowed upon thy creatures" -Jan Swammerdam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swammerdam

the ponderings of material creation, such as abiogenesis, appear superstitious.
Besides this I would argue that religion only appears superstitous to persons who are partially or completely in ignorance
(BTW th e superstitious aspect of abiogenesis is its incompleteness in knowledge)

with or without religion, there is no escaping laws and authority - like for instance its quite bizzare how green house emissions (which are the result of industrial exploitation - and material exploitation being the natural default position in the absence of dominant religious principles) have caused to polar cap sto melt and reveal land masses, which in turn inspires oil companies to look for oil deposits there - every cloud has silver lining I guess

lol - hardly - I think you have a hard time establishing that mental maladies (depression, anxiety, etc ) are any lesser in a proclaimed atheist

if you mean the ability to imagine anything and write it off as reality, I would agree

and unless you are practicing your atheistic 'freedom of thought', what communes or collectives of atheism are the evidence you are drawing on to declare them as the gurus of peace and co-operation?

except in times of drought or a million other circumstances where it becomes quite obvious that our station in the universe is not as great as we commonly pretend it is

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So point it out.

I have not found one even remotely reputable site mentioning giant bones. You're clearly the man, you clearly know more than I do. Kindly link me to a reputable source. Why do you feel the need to skirt the issue for pathetic little waste of time statements? Do you have the balls, yes or no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Go read the some germane copies of the Ancient American.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SOURCE ME!

Come on already.. this is getting tedious.

 

Trust me, you won't get anywhere. I wasted enough posts on this guy.

 

So if I find the issues and page numbers, then you say what?

 

It's meaningless. There are ways to 'experience' alien abduction, but does that mean they were actually abducted by aliens? No, it's just reinforced delusion. And what is the benefit of experiencing alien abduction if aliens are not even visiting Earth? Similarly, why would I want to get off my ass and reap the benefits of 'experiencing' god, when god isn't there?

Red herring use of the word 'knowledge' again. People who claim to experience alien abduction, have no knowledge of aliens.

Obviously nobody is making claims of teapot perception, but there are people making claims of direct alien perception and even alien worship. The question is not about god, but why people feel the need to worship at all, as we get some sort of joy out of worshipping all manner of things.

Once again you feel the need to quote religious scientists. All this leaves to me to do is point out that the majority of scientists these days are atheist and their strong wonder of nature is not diminished. Your point?

No, abiogenesis is entirely logical and reasonable given current evidence. The simplest form of life is barely discernable from 'dull matter' (as you would call it) anyway. We are all made of star stuff, we are evolved, we didn't poof out of nowhere, get over it.

Industry does not have religious principles? So? Neither does agriculture and that was started by very superstitious and religious farmers thousands of years ago which practically devastated much of the environment in Europe. So it's irrelevant to note the apparent lack of superstition in our efforts to survive and progress. And I can't help but note that religious folk are generally right wing, and the environment is not one of their top priorities.

Well, from experience, proclaimed atheists are very stable, intellectual and happy people. People warped by religious dogma haven't struck me as having much stability. I don't think anyone with strong beliefs in heaven, god, angels, Jesus as their savior, Satan, etc. can be stable.

Freedom of thought as in being able to think without restriction of religious dogma. For example, people refute evolution based only on their religious dogma. Without religion, there is no controversy in evolution.

Don't you think, if there were higher levels of atheism amongst the populations of America and the Middle East, that there would be some degree of rationality amongst their elected powers? How could George Bush get elected in Sweden? It just wouldn't happen.

Really? So rather do something like BandAid, we should all sit and pray in times of drought and famine? Good one.

 

Kenny

I am not sure why you brought up the alien abduction thing - but for the sake of rhetoric, its not exactly clear why being abducted by an alien and having an experience of it does not qualify for having an experience of being abducted by aliens - or to put it in general principles, its not clear on what authority you deem that someone's claims to an experience can be factual or not

at the moment it appears that the only authority is your perceived limitations of reality - like for instance if you deem that it is impossible to be abducted by aliens since they don't exist, then all claims of alien abductions are false - similarly if you deem that manufacturing a cold fusion engine is impossible, then all claims of such manufacture are false - do you see the striking resembelance between your argument and the argument of the high school drop out adamanant that an electron does not exist?

once again - I'm not talking about alien abductions - I am talking about applied or experiential knowledge, which forms part of virtually any syllabus of teaching and learning you care to mention.
compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_knowledge
with theoretical knowledge

in short there are three aspects of learning

1. knowledge - what we know (theoretical knowledge)
2. skills - what we can do (applied knowledge)
3. values - how we can be (realised knowledge)

it is absurd to try and approach 'skills' by 'knowledge' based paradigms (would you feel confident to undergo heart surgery from a doctor who says "I am so excited, this is my first ever dissection of a body- but don't worry - I have read about this extensively"

once again its not clear why you are talking about aliens - are you trying to say that there is absolutely no possibility that aliens exist?

the issue is quite simple - there is a certain class of person who applies a certain process to perceive a certain result - as far as the celestial teapot goes (or its contemporary derivatives, namely the FSM, pink unicorn/leprechaun etc) they are perceptions in ownership by atheists (but a cursory examination reveals them to be straw man arguments originally proposed by Bertrand Russel, so it end sup that there is actually no claim of direct perception of these entities, much less a process advocated how one can perceive them)

My point is that a scientists wonder of nature is not curtailed by theism, so your claim that atheistic science enables a greater wonder at the universe does not hold up

thats the point - abiogenesis innvolves the same "poof out of nowhere' principle so it operates on the same superstitious principle you accuse religion having the monopoly on.
Considering that there is no clear scientific consensus on how abiogenesis occurred, what the first abiogenetic organism was, what material elements the first abiogentic organism manifested from, what environment the first abiogentic organism manifested in and when the first abiogentic organism appeared, its not clear on what grounds you say it is logical and reasonable (at the very least it is not evidential, which is what something requires to avoid the "superstitious" label)

“
with or without religion, there is no escaping laws and authority - like for instance its quite bizzare how green house emissions (which are the result of industrial exploitation - and material exploitation being the natural default position in the absence of dominant religious principles) have caused to polar cap sto melt and reveal land masses, which in turn inspires oil companies to look for oil deposits there - every cloud has silver lining I guess
”

certainly don't find instructions in scripture to open a factory and exploit material nature to the point of endangering human civilization, so I guess not

I guess advancement of modern civilization is that we can do more damage in 60 years of industrialism than 2000 years of feudal agrarian culture

thats because their religious principles thinly coat their material desire to exploit (and the material desire to exploit is the root cause of atheism)

your tentative claims are fine, but I think you have have a more difficult task ahead of you if you want to establish them

are you saying that atheism doesn't have a dogma? like for instance the chairman at an atheistic society could take the mic and say "I've been thinking that the existence of god could explain a few things ...." and be respected by their associates?

people also refute evolutional theory due to flaws in the theory

nope - it would still be all about oil

http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=A&Id=1766
compared to

http://www.oilcrisis.com/us/

How could the energy demands of the USA be compared to the energy demands of sweden?

it may not be a bad idea, even from the view of persons who have no particular theistic angle to offer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_Aid_(band)#Criticism

 

I'm interested only in exposing your dishonesty, not in having philosophical discussions with you.

 

I brought up the alien abduction thing since you said:

the only difference is that there is no one making a claim of direct perception of a celestial teapot or a process that has granted success to others in directly perceiving it - this explains why people worship god and not celestial teapots by the way

Aliens were a fitting example of something that people claim direct perception of and are something that people worship in a similar way to that of god. There is always the far out chance that every person making the claim of direct perception of aliens really were abducted (which I would say gives them far better odds than that of people having direct perception of the creator of the universe). Since people already have a fascination for alien life, it stands to reason that they will find ways to have 'direct perception' of them even if (as is most likely the case), the aliens simply aren't there. And since billions of people are fascinated by god, wether or not god is there, they will find ways to 'directly perceive' it.

No, I am pretty confident that there is intelligent life elsewhere given the huge number of stars within the visible universe. I'm not so confident though that they come here to hijack dumbasses in southern states of America. Although you have to admit, it would be a good strategy: "They won't believe this dumbass redneck anyway..."

Because there is no wish for atheists to perceive the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But as theists and alien enthusiasts show, if us atheists really wanted to, we 'could'. It's so much easier to have direct perceptions of things that are already within our superstitious natures... Things like karma, horroscopes that correctly predicted our day etc. (we don't notice unsuccessful instances of karma or inaccurate horroscopes).

My point was the general religious persons wish for everything to be a miracle and remain a mystery to that of the atheist who prefers to understand things without rose tainted spectacles.

You correctly point out what we don't know about abiogenesis, the specifics. But what reasonable person would claim life did not come from matter, given everything we observe in... everything, basically. Abiogenesis did not poof out of nowhere either. The simplest form of life is not recognisable as life. Who knows when something becomes life? It's like asking at what year does stream erosion form a canyon?

Without commercialism, factories etc... We still have the small matter of providing for X billion people. Perhaps without industry as it is today, we would need a hell of a lot more farms and hunt thousands more species to extinction in order to cope.

Well then why are you living the comforts of the 21st century when you could be selling all your electronic gadgets, giving all your money to charity and going off to ethiopia to help people that need it? Don't be a hypocrite when pointing the finger at the atheist.

I honestly can't think of any occasion where a person claimed that evolution was completely falsed without some religious motive being involved.

Well Bush's base (the christian right) were the ones cheering the invasion of Iraq to high heaven, rubbishing concerns from secular Europe. It's all about what the politicians can get away with, and with such a conservative/religious base, they can get support for any war... Well... any war against countries of a different faith.

If Sweden had such energy demands, I just can't see them invading Iraq for oil, with 87% of the population being atheist.

 

KennyJC,

Since people already have a fascination for alien life, it stands to reason that they will find ways to have 'direct perception' of them even if (as is most likely the case), the aliens simply aren't there. And since billions of people are fascinated by god, wether or not god is there, they will find ways to 'directly perceive' it.

Arrrrrhh! That's cute.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, I am pretty confident that there is intelligent life elsewhere given the huge number of stars within the visible universe. I'm not so confident though that they come here to hijack dumbasses in southern states of America. Although you have to admit, it would be a good strategy: "They won't believe this dumbass redneck anyway..."

Why are you 'less confident' in the latter?

Because there is no wish for atheists to perceive the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

And why should they, when they have macro-evol.

My point was the general religious persons wish for everything to be a miracle and remain a mystery to that of the atheist who prefers to understand things without rose tainted spectacles.

Can you elaborate on the "...religious persons wish for everything to be a miracle..."
When you say "atheist", are you talking about 'real atheists' or the atheist organisation who are hell-bent (pun not intended) on banishing God from the minds of men. The reason I ask is because the people who I know, who are of the atheist state of mind, don't really care about anything that doesn't benifit them. In other words, they are gross materialists, who will wear any colored tainted specs if it suits them.

You correctly point out what we don't know about abiogenesis, the specifics. But what reasonable person would claim life did not come from matter, given everything we observe in... everything, basically.

HUH!!

Abiogenesis did not poof out of nowhere either. The simplest form of life is not recognisable as life. Who knows when something becomes life? It's like asking at what year does stream erosion form a canyon?

No its not.

Without commercialism, factories etc... We still have the small matter of providing for X billion people.

Who is we?

Perhaps without industry as it is today, we would need a hell of a lot more farms and hunt thousands more species to extinction in order to cope.

Said like a true materialist

Well then why are you living the comforts of the 21st century when you could be selling all your electronic gadgets, giving all your money to charity and going off to ethiopia to help people that need it? Don't be a hypocrite when pointing the finger at the atheist.

How do you know he is living in comfort?

I honestly can't think of any occasion where a person claimed that evolution was completely falsed without some religious motive being involved.

You do not need any motive to understand that macro-evol is not a scientific fact.

Jan

 

Kenny

then immediately there is a difference because at least with alien abductions you have persons making a sincere claim about direct perception - yoy are calling upon alien abduction cases as examples of persons merely making claims - I am advocating that,in terms of the perception of transcendence, there are both claims to the phenomena and claims how to perceive the phenomena

then immediately bringing up the analogy of alien abductions does not serve your purpose because you allude that they may be true

the only basis you have for it not being the case is that they are most unlikely - on other words it could happen, but by your current perspective you view any claims as automatically false - in other words you don't have th emeans to distinguish a false claim from a real claim so you throw them all out in the same basket

'directly perceive' does not mean 'imply' or 'fabricate' - but I agree with you in essence - there are many questionable claims about the nature of god's existence - such a scene flourishes, much like the alien abduction scene, due to an absence of knowledge - scripture and acceptingthe processes advocated by saintly persons helps address this, just as medical texts and explanations by medical practioners helps address the problem of medical fraud

so clearly the use of alien abductions works for my cause and not yours - suppose if a alien did actually abduct some redneck - how would you deem their direct perception as credible?

“

since you previously concede that alien abductions are possible, its not clear what general principle you are clinging to - its not sufficient to say "some people get it wrong therefore everyone gets it wrong"

once again - its not sufficient

without mystery, empricism cannot function or be progresive

then what is the distinction between the chemicals that formed life and the chemicals?

or alternatively the earth could be more benevolent for a pious population

actually I spend a portion of my year travelling to asian countries promoting their traditional culture to the residents over the illusory idea that advancement of civilisation means accepting the problems inherant with western culture - and I spend another portion promoting self sufficiency and simple living techniques (inspired by my visiting asian village settings) in western societies - I am not attached to my electronic gadgets - but rather than merely renouncing them for an effect that would be limited to myself I can utilize them to bear an influence on many more in the extended community

where is the theistic foundation for "where is the evidence of macro evolution that takes it beyond the status of a theory?"

well it is the USA's interest in oil, not europes ...

that says nothing about the nature of theism - i am sure that any country, faced with a threat to national security, especially if they have conservative/nationalistic support, could do much the same thing

Europeans tend to have a different character than americans - I cannot imagine sweden doing that either - I can imagine they doing devious trade negotiations or something diplomatic or under the carpet like that (its not that europeans have qualms about the state of affairs of other countries falling into pieces due to them - its more like they have qualms about being perceived as directly responsible for it - being amongst the european community and subject to the many fracturing wars of the european region, they tend to lack the obnoxious "I don't god damn care' attitude of the seperate continent type arrogance of the USA - anyway its off the topic a bit)

 

I'd say thank you. Then, (providing a copy was faxed/emailed whatever to me), I would read the article and then go about checking the veracity of it. What qualifications does the writer have, does he have any tangible evidence that can be witnessed or did it all mysteriously vanish/get stored away in some hidden government warehouse along with the holy grail, shankara stones and the holy god box thingy. If there is actual tangible evidence such as bone remains, 5 foot long toothbrushes or whatever then can it be viewed and studied? Can we corroborate that the 'bones' are humanoid instead of just the remains of a t-rex?

Add to this many more pertinent questions that need to be asked, (such as why, given the apparent finding of giant remains does it only appear on crap geocities sites and in one lone little magazine instead of all over the news, in every paper, on every radio channel), and I think we'll finally get somewhere.

However, everything starts small so let's just begin with you emailing me a copy of the article including author and any sources he used etc.

Thank you.

 

The U.S. pulled Europe's butt out of the fire in WWII, the U.S. was the power which stared down the Soviets, and the U.S. now rejects Muslim totalitarianism, leading the fight against the Muslim onslaught which wants all the world to submit to Allah, evil evil America.

 

I'm just wondering WTF this has to do with religion or this particular thread?

Are you honestly suggesting that the US is a paragon of Christian values, and that being Christian is any more valid than being a Muslim?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The U.S. is just a nation, but it does operate under the greatest Constitution ever written (though we often don't abide by it), and yes, I do think Christianity is valid, and the others are not, it's called freedom of religion, we have that in the U.S.

 

Fundamentalists Christians= Borg.
I thought I noted many similarities

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually I was quoting M*W* on her saying LG's beliefs were "futile"
But you've hit on something here I might point out ......

Jesus said He didn't come to bring peace....but a sword, remember?

There were two "parent species" used to create man as he is today.
The beast from the garden, used as a host by Satan, and Adam, created to be used as a host by God.
In Gen 6 they mixed, and all but the hybrids were carefully exterminated by both sides.

So today, we all look alike on the outside but on the inside is still the twins.......Cain and Abel.......Faith or Doubt.
The Lord has sent strong delusion to bind those without a love of the truth.
That is the Sword He sent to the Earth with His death.......the Sword of the Spirit.
With His crucifixion, He brought about the destruction.....to the vanishing point of all those without a love of the truth.
And at the same time forged the very character of God through suffering into His faithful ones.
From the serpent's first beguiling of Eve, to the crucifixion of Jesus, God let it all play into His hands for this purpose.
Even down to this day,.....with those beasts all of one mind, He has brought them to bring about His purpose.

Thanks to this carefully balanced mixture we are today, we have two different spirits in the soul realm, which is the kingdom of heaven within us....remember all the parables Jesus told of this?
Two different spirits on the inside and two different natures in and on our flesh.
Those who fell for the devil's tale, and those who did not......
Side by side everywhere in the contest, the greatest battle ever fought.

Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to fall upon all flesh......the two edged Sword.
The Rain now falls on the just, and the unjust alike.

Think you can tell who's who?
All the world will be deceived who's names are not written.....
The two spirit will be so close it would deceive the very "elect" of God, if that were possible.
The beast that was at the beginning, is still the beast on the inside at the end......there's your mark.
Those without a love of the Truth, an He is that Truth.

 

Crom laughs at your "two species of man before the deluge".

 

Well well well.. look who it is...

Something you don't have... Judgement.

1) Aliens exist somewhere in the universe - reasonable.
2) Aliens are visiting Earth and hijacking inbred americans - less reasonable.

Well the fact of evolution is certainly an occurrence which leaves less room for believing in god (as does science in general)... but I believe the greatest cause of atheism is rationality.

Well by 'real atheists' you obviously mean people who come out and say it. A significant percentage of theists will be genuine atheists too, but are religious for societal reasons only. But theists wish that everything is a miracle because they would prefer to believe that there is a loving god watching over them rather than everything being just chance events. A tree missing a house as it collapses in a storm is a 'miracle' to one family, yet ignore the percentage of times when tree's do in fact collapse and kill people.

I'm waiting with baited breath...

We as a people.

What a dumbass statement... that's unlike you Jan... Cutting the 'evils' of technological industry won't solve the problem of environmental destruction. How else do we provide food and housing for X billion people without making a dent on the environment. Birth rates will undoubtedly be higher in an undeveloped world too.

Well he is using a computer, which leads me to believe he has a good home, and access to all western creature comforts. Unless of course he is using his computer in a mud hut with a generator to power it... In which case he can sell the computer and the generator and give the proceeds to charity.

Sounds like you could do with watching this:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8937189243168103522&q=ken miller

It focuses on evolution vs creationism. I always find it sad to watch talks like these which have to happen to defend against mindless superstition, but he does a good job of it. There is a clear example at around 30 minutes, of why 'macro evolution' by all accounts is as good as fact.