Discussion in 'Religion' started by billvon, Aug 30, 2018.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh...............there.........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
George Ramsay, the football coach who just might have been a Jacobite, as well as something else that makes a trinity?
To me, the trinity is onions, bell peppers and celery. I like Cajun cooking. Just as relevant, and much more tasty.
To make a god, first make a roux...
No, it's not.
If discussing the origin of Gordon Ramsay's Cottage Pie, how/why is discussing the origin of cottage Pie in general outside of your expectation?
I have no issue with the expectation that the discussion, at the end of the day, joins the dots, but your attitude has been to dismiss any discussion of cottage Pie other than Ramsay's.
That doesn't speak to the origin of the pie at all, merely to the bells and whistles that Ramsay may add.
I don't disagree.
But you should heed your own opinion... at some part of the discussion.
Not necessarily the entirety, as you are trying to enforce.
That is where we differ.
Not on whether the discussion should, at the end of the day, join the dots to Gordon Ramsay's specific variation, but whether the discussion should be allowed to look at the origins of the pie in question, before Ramsay was ever on the scene.
I find your view on this matter rather ridiculous.
I find your efforts to close the discussion into the more general origins to be pompous.
As others have suggested, if you don't want to be part of that discussion, don't be, but don't seek to close it down.
Either add to it or leave it alone.
As to the line you are saying we should be discussing, you haven't to respond to the pertinent questions I asked.
Are you going to respond to them?
If so then please do, but if not then please explain why you are avoiding them?
Why could the trinity not be Mum,Dad and Son?
These discussions are similar to those upon UFOs each would benefit if the reality of the proposition was first established..
Well that would bring things to a grinding halt in both cases.
Indeed, or local, state and national politics. Come to think of it, even a cottage pie has three levels.
Does Stranger posting 3 consecutive memes together in a thread also lend itself to this sort of inquiry?
What are you suggesting?
I dont understand what you are driving at at all.
I am too simple so you really need to spell it out.
Thats my fault but it would not be honest of me to nod and say I understand what you mean.
What do you mean?
I dont even know what a meme is...perhaps you could start there...
What is it ..
I hear the term but have no idea what folk are talking about.
I am sorry to drop in upon the in depth discussion but my point has always been...why talk about this stuff when the original claim for a God has not been established.
That is what gets to me...why build this delussion with absolutely no evidence...there is nothing to offer any credible reason to invent a God...other than political or for profit...is that it?
A way to work out real fast who the stupid ones are.
Great way to manipulate folk, great way to con folk but is that a reason to promote lies?
You cant just make it up ...you cant guess that there could be a God...you cant rely on folk who make claims God has played a part in their lives. As I understand it back in the bronze age folk with a mental problem were seen as having a special link with God ...the guy who wrote revelations was clearly on something yet folk believe it...and so wrong..stars falling on the ground and incomprehensible ravings...its all too much.
We have our science why go back to the bronze age for knowledge..that is just so stupid...so very very stupid..
All I can see is some ancient superstition took off and conned the leading empire into buying the deal and got a toe hold...political cuteness but it happened...still that does not establish a God...
I like history as no doubt you do but for you it never gets past talking about made up stuff.
It is a pity so much energy goes to discussing stuff that has absolutely no foundation.
Sure its nice to understand how ancient superstitious humans viewed the world but hey its all now irrelevant God is clearly a made up character so why bother chatting about it...why not discuss bigfoot or alien visitation if you enjoy fantasy.
You think your knowledge takes you past the need to establish a God and no matter how sophisticated the chat ...it does not.
You are intelligent and well educated so may I ask upon what basis is this mythical God established?
Philosophy will never substitue for cold hard facts...I demand some cold hard facts that entitles anyone to rant that God exists.
I do enjoy reading your stuff by the way but lament that you have picked the wrong side.
Please show me this God that is in the back of your mind.
Perhaps come out as an atheist who does little more than overview the story.
There is even no logic or plot of this God story that I gather you support.
It does not add up.
I have little time for looking at what could be would be or should be ...I am a nuts and bolts guy...show me the tangible irrefuttable facts...please.
While we are at it please explain why this God only laid out the deal to one incredibly small number of folk...this seems most strange...why go to some obscure place to let humans in on the deal?
Why not China who were the smart folk at that time...and still are to a large degree.
I have many friends and have met many people and theists are the exception to the folk I meet and most folk think they are basically crazy so why should we think they are not simply delussional.
I just can not believe theists have not woken up to the fact they have been conned by stuff from the bronze age.
That when you start to look at threes outside of the logical consequence of being more than twos and less than fours, the world starts to look more interesting even if such vision is not necessarily accurate.
Unless you are genuinely impressed by the thought that goes into stranger's posting, you are not missing out on much.
Regardless of your opinions on the authenticity of events that have driven history, the path history has taken is open to analysis.
If you want to talk about issues that don't have recourse to profit or politics you will find you have little left for discussion ... especially as an atheist.
Probably because "science" doesn't solve the problems of existence ... and in fact tends to contribute to the production of more problems, especially when combined with the before mentioned profit and politics.
Is such a conversation limited to the subject of mere "mythical" ones?
Trying to discuss cold hard facts without philosophy is like trying to eat a bowl of spaghetti without a bowl.
Maybe we could take this to JamesR thread ... been wondering if it's worth my while considering how the OP begs the q ... but in short, does knowledge exist independent of any foundational prerequisites?
I'm not sure ehat you are talking about. Religion seems to get universal coverage in human civilization (so much so, that atheists commonly argue that it arises from some sort of psychological archetype, since explaining the phenomenon in terms of cultural transmission proves too difficult).
Are you talking about Mao or something else?
Well, your demographic circles aside, one contributing factor is that we don't live in a particularly philosophically astute age. Another is that the popular false dichotomy of what is available on the "religious marketplace" is either fanatical intolerance or homogeneous absurdity. In short, modern society is a royal mess.
Illusion and knowledge is the standard fare of this existence. If one wants to look for roles beyond being "conned" or the "con artist ", there is not any scope.
A meme is an imprint on the brain.
When you talk about something long enough it becomes legitimate by its very familiarity.
This is the fundamental problem with scripture that hasn't changed in thousands of years.
It's so old, it must be true.......NOT.
Firstly I thank you for your engagement I really enjoy the opportunity of talking to you.
Your comments cause me to think a little which is novel for me.
These things finally boil down to throwing ideas about and I certainly find that somewhat enjoyable.
And in so doing perhaps we move the discussion away from fundamental beliefs.
So I accuse you of doing this to avoid my fundamental demand for more in support of theists claims however we can always come back to that...I will always come back to that.
And I am happy to chat but know this my default position returns to a demand for the establishement of a basis or a foundation upon which reason can dwell when we are asked or called upon to believe there is a God.
The difficulty I find with your approach is this.
I am engaged for the greater part of my day in astro photography.
Even when I am not out and capturing data you can find me at the computer processing images as a first choice or researching objects to capture at some future time or merely processing and reprocessing previously captured data...also learni g new stuff takes so much times...200 pages on this 300 pages on that and on top the references in those pagrs must also be gone ovet...this sort of exact activity is my day and my noght and all of that consumes most of my time such that shopping for food or paying bills becomes tiresome and an unwelcome intrusion into what it is that I do.
And my purduits have no impact on anything other than to shore up my self esteem that I can do things beyond my ability.
I did find a nova by accident but I seek no discovery ..I just like the demands of high end photography.
So within the context of demanding perfect focus of my scope (which would take hours in the past..a hundred captures to dial it in) and alignment of the camera in exact alignment to the optical axis I find any suggestion of looking at anything in a less than perfect frame of reference to be simply unacceptable not only because it is not necessary but because one needs to observe the object under consideration or to be photographed in a manner that delivers all that is possible to deliver to indeed be delivered and so the very thought that I not be demanding of exactness along the lines you suggest it almost repulsive to me.
Even with my care I dont get to see or capture all there is and experience a small glimpse.
Although I find your suggestion appealing in so far as it sounds profound but unfortunately upon examination I find it less than profound and although I accept there are folk who find such mystical encouragement appealing I must confess I reject such an approach, ... the things you may gleen from my above attempt to qualify and record must tell you I am not taken with the exactness you encourage...
basically I cant go your way for the reason that what you call for is so indeterminate it is of no value to consider reality...in my view.
We must examine whatever we seek to examine precisely not somewhere between this and that...
Few things impress me...I did wish to provide an example but I could not...however I need not comment upon another members style as I see no need.
I like SIASL as he seems real and fond of animals and has escaped the prison that held him..theism..and that is deserving of high respect...it must take such strength...he has my highest respect.
It is infortunate each of you have taken positions that cause unfriendliness.
I recognise the impact I do however find it unfortunate that humans have religion in their history.
I feel like I arrived onbthis planet thousands of years too early.
I look and see we are still trapped in superstition.
How sad we are burdened so.
Why do humans reject their intelligence in favout of superstition.
It is about power and how to manage the mob without them realising...I think I understand who and why and sadly I support them ..but only because sheep are born to be shawn.
Its just a pity most humans are stupid and available for exploitation by such simple means.
I would like to think that is irrelevant but I know the power of the lie.
At the highest level I doubt there is belief in a God but to profess such means contr of the world...I get it.
I dont like it but I get it.
I dont like ranking you see...religion accomodates ranking on a world scale...that the way it is...
But I hope for a future where all humans are equal and all resources are distributed equaly...sortta like the mythical heaven...but of course it cant happen.
The dumb have been bred dumber and dumber and the smart have been bred smarter and smarter.
True but its all we have.
You still rely upon superstition which is unfortunate.
Making up stuff to answer a question is just wrong.
Lets breed humans who can content themselves with thecreality they will never know and that they are just soecks in the univetse and a mere blink in time.
Get rid of this uncalle for arrogance that has humans expecting more than they are given.
They are not Gods pets, there is no God, there is but one existence so get over it.
It is a balance however we are new at it...as the centuries pass it will be indeed science that regulates itself and solves the problems it creates...but really its not science that is the problem...it is humans who have this idea they are just so important...a bief they get from religion...no respect cause they are told..man has dominion over the animals ..that the whole place was created by a God for them...no wonder we have problems...dont you see that?
Ok produce a God who is not mythical... that should be easy..thousands of years but no God just phillosophy.
I will eat off the floor and be fed.
No the philosophy hides the needs for facts.
Chat all you like it does not establish anything.
Forget the pretending just bring out God.
Heck if its all about him why is he absent...well because there is no God...if there was he would take responsibilty...that is what a leader does...stand up in front so your followers know who they follow...so simple.
If it was important for God to be known why not tell the world...no just a gew folk in some obscure part of the world of no importance compared to say China...it does not makes sense.
Imagine if a space alien came to visit and he had great things to bring and instead of going to New York or Londen he visits a couple of hillbillies in North East New South Wales and lays it all on them...
So God comes to visit..why not go where the action was.
Does not make sense.
You know what I am saying but you are cute.
I dont think so other than we still have religion keeping folk stupid and accepting less than their fair share of resources.
It finds a more common usage outside of Dawkins attempt to embarrass himself in the field of semiotics.
And what might that be?
It means Dawkins doesn't see Jesus in the clouds.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
See the predominant form of strangers posting. If you are still perplexed, try google.
It also means he should have avoided venturing into fields that he has zero professional or academic expertise in (semiotics being but one example ... trauma as a consequence of experiencing pedophilia being another).
My question was, how Dawkins is attempting to embarrass himself, in your eyes, not in the eyes of strangers. To me you are a stranger, so what is your counterpoint to Dawkins?
Are you implying that theists have experience in the field of semiotics? Have you asked?
Are you implying there is a positive side to pedophilia or that being subjected to pedophilia is unknown to scientists?
I am implying Dawkins seemed oblivious to it.
Once again, its about Dawkins specifically. Try google.
Oh, and the Church is exempt from profit and politics?
As Carlin said; "when it comes to selling God, you have to stand in awe of religions".
They have actually convinced people that God needs money. He is all powerful, but just can't handle money, and constantly needs a little more. Tithing is a big thing. It's like buying a ticket in the lottery in the hope God will grant you access to heaven........NOT.
Dawkins had the audacity to express an opinion on something he personally experienced as a child.
Separate names with a comma.