Discussion in 'Religion' started by Syne, Oct 15, 2013.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Speaking of books,
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am thinking about going to the firing range this weekend to see if this book can stop .40 caliber rounds. Just curious.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Awesome! Deep thoughts are massive and provoke an anti-penetrating response. Diamond hardened philosophical statements are the best refractory elements, of course, but prone to shattering.
I figure if I pump enough rounds into the book, it will disintegrate. And then the universe will magically revert back to Christianity. That works for me.
The Romans thought they could destroy Christianity with a few well placed heated rods in certain human orifices, but that backfired.
spidergoat, hence the origin of the term...backfired.
The violence of the roman empire is what fueled Christianity to become one of the dominant religions. The Crucifixion is a power religion symbol. In fact, the symbol of a cross is just incredibly powerful, a brilliant choice by early Christians to represent their religion.
The vast majority of people have no real understanding of science...
...so the relevance of science, to the majority of people, cannot be due to accuracy. It is the fact that the products of science are ubiquitous in their lives. Secularity has no metric for accuracy, and that you "cannot escape" it is the definition of ubiquitous. And do not confuse the over-representation of the irreligious in liberal media/entertainment for an accurate depiction of the real demographics. Again, ~80% believe in a god, so there must be significant overlap.
Under-representation in media. That you can avoid overt expressions of such belief is largely a matter of the homogeneity of your associates (which is the same sort of mutual reinforcement you mention exists in churches).
Exactly why the "average Joe" has little understanding of the accuracy of science.
I do not buy it. If you were a philosopher genuinely interested in religion, you would be capable of accepting more than a childish notion of god. Much more likely that you are just the garden variety religion-basher (probably motivated by its perceived slight to your lifestyle). No secret there.
Then, again, why do you post in a religion subforum? If your posts would be just as at home in these other subfora, it seems you are seeking out the religious people who you should expect to post in a religion subforum.
Really? It seems that most people (religious or not) seeking to disparage science do so in the science fora.
So you admit that theists post here because there is opposition, which the atheists dutifully supply so they can draw in the only reason they have to express explicitly atheist views. Glad we got that cleared up.
Nearly two-thirds of online Americans use the Internet for faith-related reasons. The 64% of Internet users who perform spiritual and religious activities online represent nearly 82 million Americans. Among the most popular and important spiritually-related online activities measured in a new national survey: 38% of the nation’s 128 million Internet users have sent and received email with spiritual content; 35% have sent or received online greeting cards related to religious holidays; 32% have gone online to read news accounts of religious events and affairs; 21% have sought information about how to celebrate religious holidays; 17% have looked for information about where they could attend religious services; 7% have made or responded to online prayer requests; and 7% have made donations to religious organizations or charities. - http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/Faith-Online.aspx
Where do you think apologetics fits in? And your experience of theists online is far from comprehensive, when it seems relegated to a science forum.
"A divine observer of human behavior" is a repeated and demonstrable strawman since the OP opened with "I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god." The "quagmire" is of your own making, seemingly to evade the OP with your strawman (which is only your insistence on a childish notion of god).
But thanks for admitting your posts in this thread are off-topic.
That means they did it for spite. It wasn't the religion itself, necessarily, it was the religion as a rebellious symbol.
I see what you did there.
Not spite. Conviction.
And if you take the Bible as 100% literal, it is no wonder that you insist upon a childish notion of god that cannot be differentiated from religion.
Aww, if only he'd be as fluent in, say, Hindu scriptures as he is in the Bible! That ought to be fun!
It appears you've seen this thread after I had replied, but you haven't said anything further.
To wrap things up, here are three essays by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on this topic -
Metta Means Goodwill
The Limits of the Unlimited Attitudes
It would be interesting to explore how traditional Buddhism with the brahmaviharas differs from (modern) notions of altruism.
LOL. I have provided you a quote from the Bible showing God is no omniscient, which is what you asked for. That has nothing to do with whether I take the Bible literally or has anything to do with differentiating God from religion. You are clearly misdirecting the discussion because you have nothing to say to that verse and the many others that show God is not omniscient. It is a disingenuous tactic you continually employ in many discussions when others show you are wrong.
Here's the complete text of that first post. The highlighting is by me.
What exactly is your own "notion of god"? Why do you think that it's superior to other people's notions? Apparently there's some hierarchy here, ranging from "childish" at one extreme, to something else (your idea?) at the other. So how does that work and what justifies it?
Where did I ask you for ANYTHING showing whether god was omniscient?
Again, "I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god." So your insistence on ONE specific god is not generally representative. As this is a science forum and I have specified abstract concept, it should be obvious that the general theological attributes apply:
Theologians and philosophers have ascribed a number of attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Theological_approaches
The fact that you apparently want to limit the discussion to a specifically Abrahamic god simply illustrates that your arguments cannot be applied to the general concept of god (you know, the one actually discussed in the OP). But I will play along with your attempt to poison the well a bit. The Bible was written by men, from the perspective of men, so god would tend to be anthropomorphized. And that one verse is cherry-picking when compared to all the verses that address omniscience directly: http://www.openbible.info/topics/omniscience I mean seriously, are you so deluded that you think you can discount one of the primary attributes associated with a god, especially with one cherry-picked verse?
Don't fool yourselves, please: GOD is OMNISCIENT.(!!!)
THE URANTIA PAPERS:
Not according the Bible, He isn't.
Separate names with a comma.