Christian or not, man isn't evolving into anything demonstrably better. History proves it. Everything cycles, down up, up, down. Man improves but man consistently shoots him/herself in the foot at some point. Survival is a miracle and perhaps the greatest proof of all that there may be some greater purpose at play here - it's a wonder - seriously - that we survive at this point. We make better smarter tools and technologies - that do wonderful things on the one hand but end up killing ourselves or others one way or the other. Mankind is the Living Elmer Fudd. We're blowing up the entire forest to catch one d#$%$d rabbit and don't have the sense to just each the carrots.
Man...evolving? Given another 500,000 years...into what? At this rate, we can't even keep our hair intact as a species for more than a few years.
Man...evolving? Given another 500,000 years...into what? At this rate, we can't even keep our hair intact as a species for more than a few years.
Ohhh I dunno. Even taking into account all the Acts of Stupidity (which is beautifully illustrated by Albert Einstein in his phrase “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”) done by people over the years, ... the fact that we are still here after (either 6,000+ years or 50,000+ years, take your pick depending if you believe Creationism or evolution), and you look over all those years, humanity has managed to (largely) get rid of a lot of _really_ stupid ideas, ranging anywhere from
1) absolute rule of 'divinely annointed kings',
2) to acknowledging that people have rights to be treated humanely and equally to an expanding number of people; blacks, women, poor, those who don't own land, homosexuals, etc.,
3) the importance of using the scientific method of independent scrutiny as being *better* than simply believing/obeying some authority figure in a robe about what their god says about life, and that without question,
4) that more people are able to read and get a good education,
5) ... and there are a lot more
So don't let people's stupidity cloud the fact that there are advances being made in/for the human condition, and I'm not just referring to the technological either. We are getting better, ... over the long run, but like I said, it's getting there.
I no longer 'have faith' as it were, in the "we are such worthless sinners who can do no good on our own" dead-end road. I put more 'faith' (belief, trust, confidence) in humanity's accomplishments and progress (both actual and potential). And its quite an indictment for a religion when its god gets angry and jealous of that viewpoint. "I am a jealous God"? :unsure: Please! Why would a Superior Being who can allegedly do FAR better than we be so jealous in such a manner? A tad insecure, isn't it?
P.S., keep in mind that a LARGE part of said stupidities come straight from the 'blind faith' religious approach, which swings the door w-i-d-e open for every song-and-dance conman / ecclesiastical tin pot dictator to come right in and clean house over millions of people's minds, hearts, wallets, and lives, ... both of them and their children.
And many have done just that!
P.P.S., your post reminds me of the near terror many people had back when the nuclear arms race was into full swing back during the Reagan years, when many people were actually thinking that we wouldn't make it past the 1980s-1990s, because we were really going to blow ourselves into oblivion. Remember that clock that they kept moving closer to 12:00 midnight as an indicator of Doomsday? Not to mention all the prophetic rantings about The Last Days before the Apocolypse of Revelation, and the (supposed) date(s <-- plural ;) ) of Christ coming back due to that?
Never happened according to what they said, did it? Hhmmm, if people predicting Doomsday/Christ's Return can be shown as being stupid also, ....
I can't help but notice that, every now and then, you utilize zoo related, sexual innuendoes as a tool for rebuttal to my 'polemical tirades'. ... Should that be regarded as part of your supposedly superior, Calvinist-inspired apologetics. ..... Really, <_< ... but maybe this helps illustrate and strengthen my point as to the "just because its labelled Christian doesn't mean that its more moral" principle, ... hmmmm? (Tell me something. Do you talk like that in your church?)
G-rth,
Of course not (you don't go to my church).
I first used some zoo-related, sexual innuendo to demonstrate that it was gratuitous of you to have (quite insolently) demanded that a poster who had made some comment about homosexuals just leave them alone (similarly as it would be gratuitous if one demanded that you not sleep with a photo of Tom Daschle or not molest zoo animals).
I dropped the photo-of-Daschle thing rather quickly, I think, but used the bestiality thing (probably several times) in demonstrating by analogy that you had not supported an accusation you had frothed (i.e. I showed that there was no more demonstrable support in your posts for your accusation than the support existing on GSC threads for a contrived charge of Garthian bestiality).
Dammit, am I addicted to it? I used it in another thread in demonstrating that a formally valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument – and irritated you in the process. (Two birds, one stone.) And, although you didn’t seem to catch the point, I spelled your name “G-rth” in that thread to suggest that your posts have a self-ultimacy about them (i.e. the kind of moral autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement that would go with one who has become to himself his own little god almighty).
Now, I’ve used it again, less elegantly and psychologically overpoweringly than at first. What should I do with it? Simply put it to rest? Start a poll to see whether other GSC posters think it argumentatively brilliant, polemically hilarious, moderately sophisticated, slightly humorous, excessively suggestive, puerilely prurient, or just plain worn-out?
My "tidbit" is but a reminder of how certain religious people manipulate what the founding father's say to fit their points of view. Perhaps you didn't mean your post that way, so I stand corrected. But it's still relative, and particularly in this discussion. (So, if the shoe doesn't fit, you have nothing to worry about.)
So the red herring accusation does not apply.
If I didn’t mean my post “that way,” your tidbit is quite irrelevant. Care to demonstrate that the crowd that chronically blathers about the founding fathers and a supposedly previous “Christian America” (a crowd that has managed to irritate even the likes of me) had previously come up in this thread?
*****
No commitment, of course, but I'm probably now or soon to be checking out of GSC for a while. There are things other than posting here I should focus on.
Sorry, those cards don't stack in my deck, Garth. Here's why -
Everything you pointed out exists today, or doesn't exist, no different than at any time in the past. The core issue needs to be defined here, and it doesn't include "worthless sinner" so we can take that off the table.
The potential to do everything you described has always been in the human condition. Whether we decide to do any of them has always been possible. The decisions we make as a species IMO are first informed by 1.) personal survival and 2.) procreation. Namely - I want to live and I want to have company, preferably amongst those I know and that have a relationship to me. Trusted relationships help to insure survival.
Beyond that I think man has the potential to see outside himself and try to understand what goes on around him. I know beyond any question that I'm 1.) me and not you and 2.) I have a past and a future. I have a sense of self and purpose beyond survival and kin and clan.
Those two things are very unique amongst the animals on this planet. That state allows for something like "leisure", the sense that I can invest time in non-essential survival oriented activities.
That's where I think the weaknesses of the species show themselves. Given the choice, man can choose to idle, do nothing, do damage to himself or others, not for the purpose of surviving at the possible expense of another but simply because he/she determines that's what they want to do. In essence, work at cross purposes to their own best interests, even deriving pleasure from it. That indicates to me we may not be pumping on all pistons all the time.
The larger part of stupidities come from all manner of sources, not just religious based sources. Religious based stupidities often (since we're dealing in big soft generalities here) fall right into the survival pail. When someone feels threatened they defend, attack, act in such a way as to eliminate the threat and establish dominance. That's basic humanity at work, informing what you're calling "faith".
It can be that the highest of ideals tank when left to the basic inadequacies that man brings to them.
Don't "get me wrong". 'm all for pushing forward onward and upward. As a human I do have a lot of affection for and investment in my kind. :) No offense but I don't over estimate our potential though. We have greatness in us, but I don't see that we're becoming any greater over time, just that we continue being who and what we are. I dunno, to me it just seems plainly evident.
I first used some zoo-related, sexual innuendo to demonstrate that it was gratuitous of you to have (quite insolently) demanded that a poster who had made some comment about homosexuals just leave them alone (similarly as it would be gratuitous if one demanded that you not sleep with a photo of Tom Daschle or not molest zoo animals).
Now why is it so immorally gratuitous for me to tell someone to leave homosexuals alone? ... Oh yeah! Was it because in your mind (such that it is), it would be seemingly hypocritical for me to say that in the name of tolerance, when I seemingly show such intolerance by beating up on Calvin and his followers (including, say, you). First off, notice I said 'seemingly'. As is 'alleged'. As in 'so-called'. Allow me to elaborate.
Its one thing to beat up on homosexuals when they are doing nothing substantial to hurt you. Please notice that I said 'substantial'. ... Sorry, but their homosexuality doesn't count. ... Sorry.
Its something else to beat up on a religious doctrine that shows such (if you'll pardon my saying this) intolerance, ... (Nahh I'll use another word that you can relate to better) condescending of groups like: heretics, Unitarians, and the like, and for no better reason than that they believe in a different doctrine than you do, and even have the mitigated gaul to speak of it. The condescension of that nature does deserve to be shown (here comes that blasted word 'liberal' again) intolerance. Its something like the difference between showing intolerance for the Phelps clan everytime they march against American troops killed in Iraq, and showing intolerance for ..... Calvinists who behave themselves and don't get into a snit over Unitarianism? ;)
... and irritated you in the process.
Damn! You *are* addicted to it. :)
And, although you didn’t seem to catch the point, I spelled your name “G-rth” in that thread to suggest that your posts have a self-ultimacy about them (i.e. the kind of moral autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement that would go with one who has become to himself his own little god almighty).
Really? Now ya know, that does sound hilariously funny coming from you. Perhaps I should take my autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement skills from you. The only thing that would fit a man of your (here it comes) Elitist mentality is to become to yourself your own little god almighty. Hell, you have the vocabulary for it. So perhaps this supposed 'humility' towards the Sovereign God is actually either just a facade, or your behavior/attitude is meant to illustrate just what your god is like, ...
... and really helping to make my overall case here for me.
Thanks! :)
Now, I’ve used it again, less elegantly and psychologically overpoweringly than at first. What should I do with it? Simply put it to rest? Start a poll to see whether other GSC posters think it argumentatively brilliant, polemically hilarious, moderately sophisticated, slightly humorous, excessively suggestive, puerilely prurient, or just plain worn-out?
Now me, I'd vote for the 'just worn out' hanging chad. But hey, that's just me.
And my tidbit is relevent, even in a general way. At the very least, your mention of Patrick Henry is an illustration of religious conservatives using our founding father's statements in an irrelevant manner. Which is so much like the ones who do claim that this is a Christian nation.
In any event, if you do go ((sobs)), ... do improve your table manners. And leave the zoo related innuendoes at home.
P.S., and when did pictures of Tom Daschle come into what I said? Boy, you got one helluva filthy mind! ;)
A good set of points you make, but there is a flaw in the argument that you may not realize, and I think its related to the "if someone has no God, then he is more apt to me immoral/amoral" school of thought. (But I must say, your portrayal is *far* more intelligently refreshing than the zoo-based sexual basis that Cynic seems to be fixated on, but it is good that he can admit to being addicted to it, and can thus get help for it. ;) )
Everything you pointed out exists today, or doesn't exist, no different than at any time in the past.
No different? Ahh nope. See my points above as to why today differs markedly than 100, 500, 2000 years or more ago. And again, I'm not just talking about the technological part of it.
The core issue needs to be defined here, and it doesn't include "worthless sinner" so we can take that off the table.
Now see (in relation to the original point of this thread), the "worthless sinner" part is, and has always been, part and parcel of the elitism and separation of humanity, and has done a lot to hold the advancement of humanity back. (As I bet you can see, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it off the table as you did.)
The potential to do everything you described has always been in the human condition. Whether we decide to do any of them has always been possible. The decisions we make as a species IMO are first informed by 1.) personal survival and 2.) procreation. Namely - I want to live and I want to have company, preferably amongst those I know and that have a relationship to me. Trusted relationships help to insure survival.
Beyond that I think man has the potential to see outside himself and try to understand what goes on around him. I know beyond any question that I'm 1.) me and not you and 2.) I have a past and a future. I have a sense of self and purpose beyond survival and kin and clan.
So-o-o, why do you need a god to have all that, and more? Unless you think that part of that *has* to include god, or a heavenly destination beyond death. ... So does that mean those of us who do not have a god/heavenly destination after we die just cannot have a higher purpose than concern for ourselves and our clan? :unsure: How many non-god-believing individuals throughout world history has looked to others than just themselves or their family, who fought for the rights and freedoms of other people, who endeavored to use their skills (including the scientific and technical) for the betterment of mankind as a whole, who refused to use their skills for purposes that they deemed immoral?
I got a clue for ya. There were quite a few (ie., many) of said non-god-believing individuals who did those things, irrelevent of the crap society has been fed about the supposed 'live no higher than the animals' atheists. Altho' you put it nicely, I still see it as the same flawed crap. ... No offense intended.
The only difference between how an unbeliever views living for a higher purpose, and how a believer views living for a higher purpose, is that an unbeliever sees no need to include a god in the equation. ... Period.
That's where I think the weaknesses of the species show themselves. Given the choice, man can choose to idle, do nothing, do damage to himself or others, not for the purpose of surviving at the possible expense of another but simply because he/she determines that's what they want to do. In essence, work at cross purposes to their own best interests, even deriving pleasure from it. That indicates to me we may not be pumping on all pistons all the time.
Given the choice, that is what man automatically chooses to do? Nahh, I know better than that. Some (even many) would choose to do that, but not all. And the fact that they choose to do so means that they aren't forced by nature to do so. ... And in any event, that still doesn't show where they need a god to make them choose the higher path. They just think they do.
The potential is still there. People just need to _decide_ to utilize their potential and *do* it.
The larger part of stupidities come from all manner of sources, not just religious based sources.
I agree.
It can be that the highest of ideals tank when left to the basic inadequacies that man brings to them.
And that shows the unconscious remnants of the 'worthless sinner' doctrine that has been so engrafted into our 'Christian' society, remnants that I still hope that you want to leave off the table.
We have greatness in us, but I don't see that we're becoming any greater over time, just that we continue being who and what we are. I dunno, to me it just seems plainly evident.
I guess I'm more an optimist in that regard. ... Altho' acts of human stupidity do have a big influence at diminishing that optimism.
Ohhh I dunno. Even taking into account all the Acts of Stupidity (which is beautifully illustrated by Albert Einstein in his phrase “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”)
This is "unsourced", meaning no attempt to find Einstein actually SAYING it has succeeded to date.
(Per his "wikiquote" page-if you can find a specific SOURCE, a place and time where he said it,
we can amend the wikiquote page, but I'd be rather shocked.)
Einstein DID, however, verifiably say the following:
"But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind."
"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
"Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
Now why is it so immorally gratuitous for me to tell someone to leave homosexuals alone? ... Oh yeah! Was it because in your mind (such that it is), it would be seemingly hypocritical for me to say that in the name of tolerance, when I seemingly show such intolerance by beating up on Calvin and his followers (including, say, you). First off, notice I said 'seemingly'. As is 'alleged'. As in 'so-called'. Allow me to elaborate.
Its one thing to beat up on homosexuals when they are doing nothing substantial to hurt you. Please notice that I said 'substantial'. ... Sorry, but their homosexuality doesn't count. ... Sorry.
Your rhetoric directed at the poster implied that he was inclined to do violence to homosexuals. Your demand was gratuitous. I don’t think the poster had come anywhere close to suggesting violence against homosexuals, and, though I do not recall his specific comments, the activist segment of the homosexual community is certainly a fair subject for criticism – particularly considering the heavy handed states of affairs coming about in Europe, in Canada, and on some U. S. college campuses due to gay activists and their fellow travelers obtaining some level of enforcement for their ideas about establishing a new order of “tolerance.” (In national politics in the U.S, the campaign hasn’t been significantly successful, probably due to changes in the political climate caused by outcomes of the 1994, 2000, and 2004 elections.)
...mitigated gaul....
Quite the wordsmith, there, ain't you?
And my tidbit is relevent, even in a general way. At the very least, your mention of Patrick Henry is an illustration of religious conservatives using our founding father's statements in an irrelevant manner. Which is so much like the ones who do claim that this is a Christian nation.
Yes, I made a play on Patrick Henry’s words in commenting on a subject he was not speaking about (which is a common practice when making a play on words), but your objection still attempts to manufacture an unfounded comparison by building more on my wordplay than it will bear.
P.S., and when did pictures of Tom Daschle come into what I said? Boy, you got one helluva filthy mind! ;)
The points with the Daschle photo were to illustrate the baselessness of your demand, irritate you, and be humorous in the process. I did not characterize the content of a preposterously hypothetical Daschle photo that one could insolently and gratuitiously pop up and demand that you not sleep with. And, to counter-illustrate your building more on my play on a Patrick Henry quote than it will bear: When you import a word such as filthy to manipulate a discussion with your opponent, beware of making the 'ol Freudian slip!
Hey Garth, thanks for the response. I would say - "worthless sinner" can be looked at and defined and have meaning in this discussion, but it's charged with a lot of information and feeling.
So-o-o, why do you need a god to have all that, and more? Unless you think that part of that *has* to include god, or a heavenly destination beyond death. ... So does that mean those of us who do not have a god/heavenly destination after we die just cannot have a higher purpose than concern for ourselves and our clan? :unsure: How many non-god-believing individuals throughout world history has looked to others than just themselves or their family, who fought for the rights and freedoms of other people, who endeavored to use their skills (including the scientific and technical) for the betterment of mankind as a whole, who refused to use their skills for purposes that they deemed immoral?
Overall - look at mankind -
Let's assume for a minute there's no god, none of that stuff. No god that's communicated, spoken, informed or even hinted at any of the religious type thought that man cooks up, and entirely on his own. He acts according to those ideas and beliefs of his own accord. And that's produced a lot of bad behavior throughout history.
Where's that coming from? Not god, there's no god in this scenario.
It's man doing it. Somewhere along the line man concluded these things, not once but over and over. In fact history indicates if we got rid of it all today - it would be back again and pretty soon. Man would do it all over again.
The beliefs and the actions are coming from man, to exclude, denigrate, destroy. Man comes up with "godly love" and beats the crap out of anyone who doesn't believe in it. Who's doing that? Not the imaginary god. Man. And he's always done it, in this scenario.
(And if you're going to point out that these centuries aren't of a Christian/religious nature either, ... well, ... When was there a 'more evolved/more godly' period that is far better than now, hhmmm? :unsure: )
In a probably futile attempt to keep at least some of this discussion honest I must point out that this is a very subjective statement. We of course feel that we are living at some high point in evolution, but to be honest I am fairly certain that when man figured out how to make fire and harness its power, they thought the same thing. Similarily when man invented or realized some other life altering thing they also felt as if they were "highly evolved". This proves nothing.
In the religion area; if one were to set aside their Bible (please no-one freak) and just look at history, they would certainly see that from the beginning of recored history, (including cave paintings and the like) man when in a society structure has always had some sort of "god" worship. They have also had a "pecking" order and a leader of sorts. This is nothing new. We just think that we are the end all to beat all. Fifty years from now when we are all feeding the worms...the next generation will think the same thing.
My thoughts eggsackly Eyes. The mans we have today aren't all that different than the mans and womans of the past. Same brain, same mind, same body. Same kinds of actions. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.
Blaming "god" and "religion" needs to be clearly defined. When we do that I think we see that "religous" thought doesn't produce - inherently - a bad result.
The LCD is man. If there's no god and it's all bull cheet at church, fine. That belief has to accept that there's only one root to the problem - the mans and womans. If religion is a bad idea, who's idea was it? to put it another way.
It's kind of like that saying, "Guns dont kill people, people kill people." But the problem with mankind has quite often been that they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. So they blame it on someone else. God or whatever they worshipped has always been a safe "out", how often does the diety ever come around and dispute the claim against him/her?
The centuries havent changes this practice at all. Mankind has always (as a group) blamed someone else for what they themselves have caused. The Bible as well as other history books are full of examples. There have been a scant few that have stood up and taken the responsibility and even fewer that have actually had that act recored into history for us to see.
Cynic, I don't think you'll ever really leave this place. You'd miss me more than I'd ever miss you. ;)
Wordwolf,
My quote re: Einstein wasn't meant to be authoritative, but a well known phrase that people (even if not Einstein) attributed to stupidity.
As far as Einstein's religious views go (gathered from the related and verifiable quotes I could find), altho' he was rightly angered by some of the atheists of his day, never really communicated himself as anything beyond a pantheist, and not quite a deist. He talked about Spinoza's God, which would have put him (more or less) in the pantheist camp. Then again, Einstein did not like being pigeonholed. (The referring site does contain a lot of info/quotes re: Einstein, albeit I do get this distinct impression that the guy is trying to portray Einstein as more of a believer in 'God' than I suspect he really was. But hey! That's my 2 cents.
I do disagree with Einstein as far as his rendering of 'Freethinker' goes (quote drawn from the same site):
However, I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality.
Exclusively an opposition against naive superstition? I wouldn't go that far, but such an opposition, I believe, is a good thing to have. Why not go farther than naive superstition?
"My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature.'"
That's why we ask questions, and why we explore and investigate, to grow in our understanding of that universe, ... rather than go back into the 'safe' cocoon of "We humans are so insignificant, that we have no way of truly understanding the universe.", thus opening up ourselves to the previously mentioned 'song-and-dance conmen / ecclesiastical tin pot dictators' willing to put us under their thumb.
"It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality". ... Odd. It definitely wasn't absent in Carl Sagan, and he was a freethinker to the hilt.
Garth, your frothing at the mouth response, your insinuating and reading things into my posts that I never thought, much less said - geez dude, you went totally off the deep end. You have an amazing hatred of God. That's cool, we all know that. I could care less what you believe. But I can't discuss with you when you go nuts like that.
Let's assume for a minute there's no god, none of that stuff. No god that's communicated, spoken, informed or even hinted at any of the religious type thought that man cooks up, and entirely on his own. He acts according to those ideas and beliefs of his own accord. And that's produced a lot of bad behavior throughout history.
Where's that coming from? Not god, there's no god in this scenario.
True as far as that goes. But there is a significant difference between 1) Doing bad things from your own volition and authority, as far as that goes in endeavoring to get away with it, and 2) doing bad things from the standpoint of "God told me to do these things, and God is The Source of all that is Right" yadayada, and that puts a whole new spin to it. I mean, its one thing to challenge an abusive twit. Its a whole 'nother ballgame to challenge an abusive twit who's (supposedly) backed by the Sovereign Creator of the universe.
Plus you make the flaw about acting according to one's ideas and beliefs of his own accord. That flaw is one of presumption. The presumption being that it, by default (even generally), will wind up bad. You mean to tell me that such individuals cannot figure out that to get ahead, show progress, and all, one needs to show thought and concern towards others? ... Like we need God to boom out of the sky: "THOU MUST RESPECT THY FELLOW HUMAN BEING!", otherwise we are incapable of learning it? ... Yeah, right! Its Yet Another Variation of the Unbelievers in God Cannot Know to Do Moral Things fallacy, ... and Yes Virginia, it is a fallacy.
The beliefs and the actions are coming from man, to exclude, denigrate, destroy. Man comes up with "godly love" and beats the crap out of anyone who doesn't believe in it. Who's doing that? Not the imaginary god. Man. And he's always done it, in this scenario.
Of course he's always done it, ... due to the idea of some deity who wants mindless obedience to said exclusion, denigration, and destruction. (That's one big reason why I don't believe in said deity any more) One possible solution to this scenario: Get rid of the bad idea, and (as Eyes alluded to) make the twits responsible for their crap. Then again, if the accounts in the bible are any indicator (particularly the accounts where god has his people kill those that worship other gods, and where those who do not accept Jesus are thrown into the lake of fire), and if that deity is for real, ... then what does that say about the god coming up with those ideas. If that god is real, we can't really say that its just man doing it now, can we? ... Either way, the religious side is screwed, ... right? (And Yet Another reason for my disbelief)
Eyes,
In a probably futile attempt to keep at least some of this discussion honest ...
Hell, this whole discussion is quite honest; both sides (well, maybe Cynic and his zoo are the exception here ;) ). We just disagree on the particulars. ... Heh! I love it when the "You aren't being honest!" quip is thrown out by some people, particularly when they hear something that they don't like, so they presume that its dishonest. <_<
... I must point out that this is a very subjective statement.
How about relative? True, a lot of crap is still being done today, but what about 100 years ago. Was it really 'more moral, more evolved' back then? How about 500 years ago? 1,000 years? 5,000 years? What things (and again, I ain't talking technological) that we enjoy and take for granted, did we NOT have back during those times?
1) the right to speak out against our government,
2) the right to elect our leaders
3) the concept of equality between the races, the sexes, and of homosexuals
4) the concept of mental illness as something to be treated as opposed to someone being possessed with demons and to be ran out of town/killed
5) the exploring of the entire world and realizing of what it consists of, rather than believing that if you sail out far enough on the ocean, you'll fall off the edge
6) the usage of science as a tool of discovery, rather than simply relying on priests in long robes quoting from their holy books for the information
Like I said, I think you guys are allowing yourselves to be snowed by all the garbage that is being done by allowing it to obscure the good actions/potential that is being done/can be done by people. And this "I am nothing but a sinner incapable of doing any good on my own" mentality that is unfortunately engrained in society, provides a seriously warped view to that end, as well as contributing *seriously* towards people not holding themselves accountable for their actions, ... wouldn't you say?
Speaking of which: "I would say - 'worthless sinner' can be looked at and defined and have meaning in this discussion, but it's charged with a lot of information and feeling."
Aww c'mon Socks. You aren't wussing out on me now, are ya? ;)
Garth, your frothing at the mouth response, your insinuating and reading things into my posts that I never thought, much less said - geez dude, you went totally off the deep end. You have an amazing hatred of God. That's cool, we all know that. I could care less what you believe. But I can't discuss with you when you go nuts like that.
Hhmmm, is it really me frothing at the mouth? (checks my mouth and keyboard to make sure no spittle is on it --- Nope! None. )
Or could it be you (all too conveniently) projecting that image onto me because of content of my posts, ... and topped off my accusing me of having hatred of an entity I don't believe exists. Hey! I don't believe Santa exists either, but I don't go around hating said mythical being. (I do hate the Xmas musak in the malls tho'. Sorry about that!)
Yet Another Fallacy (commonly used unfortunately) posted by someone who most likely 'cares' what I believe (especially when I post said beliefs ;) ) than she 'cares' to admit. ... Ya think?
Sunesis, I post this way because this is my style. My 'schtick'. It's up front, straight forward, and I come by it honestly (believe it or not) in a you-know-where-I'm-coming-from approach. Not in the most diplomatic of styles, I'll grant you that, but at least I'm not lying to you as pertains to what views I hold. I've posted this way many a time, and I find it ironic that I don't hear a peep from you, *particularly* when I blast Weirwille for the scumbag that he is. Not a peep of complaint. Not one ounce of "I'm sorry, but you're too deep end for me!" high brow.
Frankly, I've been quite calm in my composing of these posts of mine (and quite amused in my responses to Cynic :lol: ). At the very least, I've been no more emotional than you when you posted your rebuttal to what I wrote (at the top of page 2). And, again, I hear not one protestation from you to Cynic's clearly prurient and insulting posts in my direction, and his apparent pride in such. Where's your high brow then?
But the thing that you really find so 'deep end' is the content of my posts, not necessarily the style, so spare me the Miss Manners, ... please. ;)
Heh! You think we atheists are the ones being so offensive to Christians? Hell lady, even Madeline Murray O'Hair, in her worst moments, couldn't even begin to compare with the s**t many Christians said about, ... and did (and still do) to, atheists. For example, how would you like it if the President of the United States stated outright that Christians/religious people cannot be viewed as patriotic, because this is an unbelieving nation, hmmm? (and I can provide the source of a former President saying just that, in reverse, about atheists!) ... Suffice it to say (and I'd bet $$$$ on this) that you'd be FAR more pi$$ed than I have ever sounded on this board, if such a statement from the President did occur.
So even if you do detect some anger in my posts, well maybe there's a reason, perhaps? .... Or is that 'too deep' for you? <_<
And I don't think you're incapable of dealing with the points therein even with the 'anger', even if its to challenge them with 'The Truth', (if you indeed do have it). Socks and Eyes have been dealing with my posts with no problem. You're an intelligent individual like they are, so it shouldn't be any problem for you.
P.S., As far as where I have "insinuated and read things into your posts", I was addressing your points re:
1) where you thought we weren't progressing like others claimed,
2) where you didn't think that religion was the cause of elitism,
3) where you thought I was being dishonest with my arguments, where I was addressing points that are relevant to the thread topic.
You have made accusations of me of reading things into your posts, and those accusations are misreading themselves. Such as: I never accused you of saying that it was wrong for people to determine their own destiny. And never on some of your other accusations of 'reading into' your posts either. And that goes for your charge of me being dishonest.
Garth, we're gettin' to the nitty gritty now! I'm saving my big guns for the corral, only have time for this much now. It's rainin' out here on the West Coast!!!!
You're describing a process of thinking and decision making - the god told me, divine guidance stuff - that by your own construct includes no god or divine guidance. Look at this for a sec in that light -
due to the idea of some deity who wants mindless obedience to said exclusion, denigration, and destruction. (That's one big reason why I don't believe in said deity any more)
Who's idea is that then? Not the Deity-That-Doesn't-Exist. Who designs mindless obedience to exclude, denigrate, destroy? Not the Ungod.
Mans does. Manses and womanses.
Man is therefore the flawed component and I think it's time to own up. Don't blame "god", there is none. Don't blame preachers or "believers", they're always here, always have been and always will be if history is any indication.
Man comes up with those crazee ideas, man hates, man designs gods in his own image and apparently not his best side. ("do these rituals make my deity look fat?")
You in learned and evolved wisdom have concluded that it's misguided and wrong. Great.
You're part of the manses species is doing well then. The same brain, mind and body that produced that produces the dented can of fruit known as "religion". The essence of the stuff, the capacity is the same.
I know you want to take credit and part in the evolved successes of manses. I just think you should take the same for the devolved condition. It's a wash. If manses is getting any better, don't worry - whatever you contribute will be balanced out. It always will be - it's not the actions, the things, the stuff. It's the species - the capacity is what it is.
I have no problem recognizing that - no wishful thinking, no pie in the sky maybe it'll get better if we all just try harder. There's no human tooth fairy going to grab me by my boot straps and pull me along to a brighter future where there are spandex jackets for everyone.
It will get better, and I certainly hope so. But somewhere there will be the other side of the bell curve, not carrying their weight. Because they're human. We are what we are.
You are partly correct, in that it's man that concocted the whole thing, including the god concept. ;)
But to take the blame totally off the concept itself is flawed, ... as that concept, by its very nature, inspires people to act abusively and with the backing of a perfectly moral entity.
And there is a difference between that, and acting abusively simply because one's a selfish perp.
See the difference?
Good talking to you tho'. You're a good ol' bean, ... don't care what Cynic sez about ya.
Thanks Garth. Anyone as talented as you can't be all bad.
I behold a paradox that I simply can't get around, with your logic. And it may be that the paradox is an answer we have to live with.
The concept - if it's flawed, who owns it? Let's get that guy and sit 'im down. Or her.
I'm taking the atheist's stance here in this, which may not be your own exactly. I am in fact, not an atheist, for these very reasons. To be so, I would have to say there's no "god", no external personality or intelligence involvd in all of "this".
If there's no god, and we've developed religious beliefs on our own, the human race is seriously flawed. Maybe not you. Certainly not me. But I think it's healthy to recognize then that at any time, man has the capacity to live seriously deluded and far below the standard of a healthy frog or well raised duck. Man can't be left alone for a minute or he'll go to standard and start worshipping comets, or lightning or who knows what. Once he learns what lightning really is he'll stop and harness electricity but in time he'll use it to record and reproduce endless versions of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" and at some point put everyone in jail that doesn't agree. He'll make a spear to kill his food and eat better and grow stronger and end up shooting everyone in sight one day. That's the human condition, no matter how far I back it up. We can do good, and we often do. Until we don't.
Life sucks when it isn't cool. Life's cool - when it doesn't suck. For the vast majority of mankind throughout history, life has at best, balanced somewhere inbetween, and man tends to bring it on hisself.
If there's no god, and we've developed religious beliefs on our own, the human race is seriously flawed. Maybe not you. Certainly not me. But I think it's healthy to recognize then that at any time, man has the capacity to live seriously deluded and far below the standard of a healthy frog or well raised duck. Man can't be left alone for a minute or he'll go to standard and start worshipping comets, or lightning or who knows what. Once he learns what lightning really is he'll stop and harness electricity but in time he'll use it to record and reproduce endless versions of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" and at some point put everyone in jail that doesn't agree.
Basically, I think that the god concept, throughout time, is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. The desire to explain the unexplainable isn't the seriously flawed part; what the hell, we're curious critters. Or even trying to put it into a form of "there is some form of invisible being up there that must be controlling things, 'cuz I sure as hell can't explain it, so that must be what it is." kind of explaination might be flawed, but it isn't necessarily harmful, ... not as long as one leaves the door of scrutiny open, and where people are free to accept/reject as they see fit, ... well hell, have all the invisible friends ya want. The abusive flaws come into play when said invisible friend becomes (according to the Doctrine of Invisible Friend) controlling, abusive, and anal, and as a result, the followers become controlling, abusive, and anal, ... and Elitist. ;)
And what if those religious beliefs were true, but they depict said REAL invisible friend as controlling, abusive, and quite anal as the doctrine says? One who _demands_ worship, ... or else? One with the Power to wipe us all out on his whim? Whether we really deserve it or not? ... Or worse? (And look at how for we have ... 'evolved' on this test run? :unsure: )
Maybe that'll help clear up my point as to why I wouldn't follow such an 'invisible friend' even if it were true. ... And that example of said friend would show us a better alternative than having no god? Of having a higher path of evolution for our society?
Nahhh! Darwin's monkeys are cooler.
I am in fact, not an atheist, for these very reasons. To be so, I would have to say there's no "god", no external personality or intelligence involvd in all of "this".
Actually, quite a number of atheists take a different approach. The type of atheist you mention are known as 'strong atheists'. They say with certainty that there is no god, or can't be a god. Note the absoluteness of the claim. There is another branch called 'weak atheists'. They don't say "There is no God" as tho' they can prove it. Rather, they take the "I can't prove that god doesn't exist, but as far as I'm concerned, unless you can prove to me this god of yours, I won't believe in it." See the difference? One makes a claim as tho its fact, the other just won't believe until claim of deity is verified and proven. One reason this is is because the 'weak atheist' knows you cannot prove a negative, also you put the burden of proof on the shoulders of the theist (where it really belongs IMNSHO), whereas the strong atheist puts himself in a position to prove that there is no god, and all they have is their ability (or maybe lack thereof) to prove their point.
Thusly I'm in the 'weak atheist' category. I'll leave it up to the theist to prove his point. ... Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm lazy that way. ;) ..... OH NO!! I'M PROVING SOCKS THEORY THAT MAN'S BASIC NATURE IS TO BE LAZY!!!! :o
Ummm, you DO know that was sarcasm, ...... don't you?
Once he learns what lightning really is he'll stop and harness electricity but in time he'll use it to record and reproduce endless versions of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon"
Yee GODS man!! Now you gone and totally *shattered* my utopian world! ((snif)) Everything was going honky-dorey until you brought THAT up.
Anywho, this was fun. Why I even got a good laugh from Cynic and his friends at the zoo. I think I'll step back from this for a while until Sunesis isn't mad at me no mo'.
Well, this has been kickin' it, at any rate. I'm happy to exchange thoughts here with you. The orignal topic was elitism and how judging others based on their beliefs divides, I think I put that right.
Man does what he does and as I stated I feel it's two steps up and 3 back all the time. He thinks he's making progress but he doesn't really know. There's nothing to rate it against, "this" is all we know. So it stands to our reason we'd think we're doing fine. We're grading our own homework. ("this isn't his best work but Jimmy's really trying. B+, he'll do better once he stops hanging around with those losers").
The most universal of belief systems will still have some standards. If it's "do as thou wilt", that's a standard. It it's "do as thou will and bring no harm", that's a standard. If it's "do as thou will and attempt to do good", that's a standard.
Here's the way I see it - coherence, unity, is a process, a result. If something is truly "one" it's one one, not two or three things joined. True unity is organic, intrinsic.
When something's joined there's agreement. Two, three pieces come together.
Contradictory belief systems don't come together and never join. They can co-exist, in disagreement until they cross paths, and there will always be disagreement when they do.
I think to not recognize that and accept it is a bad idea. We may never manage those differences successfully. There will be failure. The purest success will be "truth", and truth, whatever that is, will contradict, and vice versa, anything that isn't true. It's so natural and normal I can't see how it's debatable.
I don't see how, in our current state of mannishness, anything else is possible.
And here in I believe you find your answer. God is not confined to one religion. Only man's mind is that small.
Hello Eyesopen,
Yes God is not confined.
Exception; each person confines God what they are able to fathom.
Christians keep God in a certain box, as do agnostics, atheists, spiritualists, ect, ect.
Since we are quoting Einstein.
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
A lot of us have progressed to the point where we know for sure, that we just know enough, to "stand in awe".
On another point, I find myself in agreement with Sunesis when she said that she was only pointing out (in the other thread) that your beliefs as stated were not strictly Christian. And probably should not be billed as such.
I have progressed right out of Christianity, and retain much of the Spiritual goodness that I received, while bound to that religion.
1 Thessalonians 5:21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Good advice from Paul.
We will disagree on this board. It is a freedom that we did not enjoy while in twi. So expect it. As long as we keep it civil things wont get messy.
Just started a new thread from the content of another.................it is a discussion.
I have no problem disagreeing with folks, and I spect folks have no problem disagreeing with me. I'm not a messy discusser.............
Wow though, the turn this thread took.
As our elitism topples we progress, and not until.
Sometimes we get left behind, because the world just is not going to wait forever for us to progress. One thing is sure........progress. Jump on or get run over.
Exception; each person confines God what they are able to fathom.
Christians keep God in a certain box, as do agnostics, atheists, spiritualists, ect, ect.
Hi Patrick,
In my opinion there is no exception. God cannot be confined. Mankind as you say keeps him in a box. From our limited viewpoint you are correct. God Himself is not confined. Man limits his own "blessings". God simply works within the confines of man's ability to understand/believe...whatever you want to call it.
As an example: A person does not shrink so that they can get the contents out of a potato chip bag, they simply reach in with their hand and extract the contents. Similar with God, he does not shrink simply because man cannot fathom how big He is.
Next point that you addressed...perhaps you misunderstood my statement. I was not saying that you were arguing or even encouraging an argument. I was responding to another poster's comment about arguing and adding my own comment about it being normal, expected and ok. I also made a comment about it being best if it didnt get messy. All of it was simply as I said a statement in response to another poster.
I said:
"On another point, I find myself in agreement with Sunesis when she said that she was only pointing out (in the other thread) that your beliefs as stated were not strictly Christian. And probably should not be billed as such."
And your response:
"I have progressed right out of Christianity, and retain much of the Spiritual goodness that I received, while bound to that religion.
1 Thessalonians 5:21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Good advice from Paul."
I agree that this is good advice from Paul, but I fail to see the connection in your response. Perhaps it is too early yet for my brain to have engaged.
Garth,
I wish that I could have continued our discussion with you and Socks yesterday. But what I read from you both was very interesting. The rain here caused some local flooding and I spent a good deal of my day soaking wet filling while sand bags. So I was unable to continue our discussion. Perhaps next time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
15
7
13
Popular Days
Jan 3
17
Jan 4
17
Jan 13
11
Jan 2
9
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 8 posts
GarthP2000 15 posts
Bramble 7 posts
Patrick and Sarah 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2008
17 posts
Jan 4 2008
17 posts
Jan 13 2008
11 posts
Jan 2 2008
9 posts
socks
Christian or not, man isn't evolving into anything demonstrably better. History proves it. Everything cycles, down up, up, down. Man improves but man consistently shoots him/herself in the foot at some point. Survival is a miracle and perhaps the greatest proof of all that there may be some greater purpose at play here - it's a wonder - seriously - that we survive at this point. We make better smarter tools and technologies - that do wonderful things on the one hand but end up killing ourselves or others one way or the other. Mankind is the Living Elmer Fudd. We're blowing up the entire forest to catch one d#$%$d rabbit and don't have the sense to just each the carrots.
Man...evolving? Given another 500,000 years...into what? At this rate, we can't even keep our hair intact as a species for more than a few years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ohhh I dunno. Even taking into account all the Acts of Stupidity (which is beautifully illustrated by Albert Einstein in his phrase “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.”) done by people over the years, ... the fact that we are still here after (either 6,000+ years or 50,000+ years, take your pick depending if you believe Creationism or evolution), and you look over all those years, humanity has managed to (largely) get rid of a lot of _really_ stupid ideas, ranging anywhere from
1) absolute rule of 'divinely annointed kings',
2) to acknowledging that people have rights to be treated humanely and equally to an expanding number of people; blacks, women, poor, those who don't own land, homosexuals, etc.,
3) the importance of using the scientific method of independent scrutiny as being *better* than simply believing/obeying some authority figure in a robe about what their god says about life, and that without question,
4) that more people are able to read and get a good education,
5) ... and there are a lot more
So don't let people's stupidity cloud the fact that there are advances being made in/for the human condition, and I'm not just referring to the technological either. We are getting better, ... over the long run, but like I said, it's getting there.
I no longer 'have faith' as it were, in the "we are such worthless sinners who can do no good on our own" dead-end road. I put more 'faith' (belief, trust, confidence) in humanity's accomplishments and progress (both actual and potential). And its quite an indictment for a religion when its god gets angry and jealous of that viewpoint. "I am a jealous God"? :unsure: Please! Why would a Superior Being who can allegedly do FAR better than we be so jealous in such a manner? A tad insecure, isn't it?
P.S., keep in mind that a LARGE part of said stupidities come straight from the 'blind faith' religious approach, which swings the door w-i-d-e open for every song-and-dance conman / ecclesiastical tin pot dictator to come right in and clean house over millions of people's minds, hearts, wallets, and lives, ... both of them and their children.
And many have done just that!
P.P.S., your post reminds me of the near terror many people had back when the nuclear arms race was into full swing back during the Reagan years, when many people were actually thinking that we wouldn't make it past the 1980s-1990s, because we were really going to blow ourselves into oblivion. Remember that clock that they kept moving closer to 12:00 midnight as an indicator of Doomsday? Not to mention all the prophetic rantings about The Last Days before the Apocolypse of Revelation, and the (supposed) date(s <-- plural ;) ) of Christ coming back due to that?
Never happened according to what they said, did it? Hhmmm, if people predicting Doomsday/Christ's Return can be shown as being stupid also, ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
G-rth,
Of course not (you don't go to my church).
I first used some zoo-related, sexual innuendo to demonstrate that it was gratuitous of you to have (quite insolently) demanded that a poster who had made some comment about homosexuals just leave them alone (similarly as it would be gratuitous if one demanded that you not sleep with a photo of Tom Daschle or not molest zoo animals).
I dropped the photo-of-Daschle thing rather quickly, I think, but used the bestiality thing (probably several times) in demonstrating by analogy that you had not supported an accusation you had frothed (i.e. I showed that there was no more demonstrable support in your posts for your accusation than the support existing on GSC threads for a contrived charge of Garthian bestiality).
Dammit, am I addicted to it? I used it in another thread in demonstrating that a formally valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument – and irritated you in the process. (Two birds, one stone.) And, although you didn’t seem to catch the point, I spelled your name “G-rth” in that thread to suggest that your posts have a self-ultimacy about them (i.e. the kind of moral autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement that would go with one who has become to himself his own little god almighty).
Now, I’ve used it again, less elegantly and psychologically overpoweringly than at first. What should I do with it? Simply put it to rest? Start a poll to see whether other GSC posters think it argumentatively brilliant, polemically hilarious, moderately sophisticated, slightly humorous, excessively suggestive, puerilely prurient, or just plain worn-out?
If I didn’t mean my post “that way,” your tidbit is quite irrelevant. Care to demonstrate that the crowd that chronically blathers about the founding fathers and a supposedly previous “Christian America” (a crowd that has managed to irritate even the likes of me) had previously come up in this thread?
*****
No commitment, of course, but I'm probably now or soon to be checking out of GSC for a while. There are things other than posting here I should focus on.
What's Tom Daschle doing?
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Sorry, those cards don't stack in my deck, Garth. Here's why -
Everything you pointed out exists today, or doesn't exist, no different than at any time in the past. The core issue needs to be defined here, and it doesn't include "worthless sinner" so we can take that off the table.
The potential to do everything you described has always been in the human condition. Whether we decide to do any of them has always been possible. The decisions we make as a species IMO are first informed by 1.) personal survival and 2.) procreation. Namely - I want to live and I want to have company, preferably amongst those I know and that have a relationship to me. Trusted relationships help to insure survival.
Beyond that I think man has the potential to see outside himself and try to understand what goes on around him. I know beyond any question that I'm 1.) me and not you and 2.) I have a past and a future. I have a sense of self and purpose beyond survival and kin and clan.
Those two things are very unique amongst the animals on this planet. That state allows for something like "leisure", the sense that I can invest time in non-essential survival oriented activities.
That's where I think the weaknesses of the species show themselves. Given the choice, man can choose to idle, do nothing, do damage to himself or others, not for the purpose of surviving at the possible expense of another but simply because he/she determines that's what they want to do. In essence, work at cross purposes to their own best interests, even deriving pleasure from it. That indicates to me we may not be pumping on all pistons all the time.
The larger part of stupidities come from all manner of sources, not just religious based sources. Religious based stupidities often (since we're dealing in big soft generalities here) fall right into the survival pail. When someone feels threatened they defend, attack, act in such a way as to eliminate the threat and establish dominance. That's basic humanity at work, informing what you're calling "faith".
It can be that the highest of ideals tank when left to the basic inadequacies that man brings to them.
Don't "get me wrong". 'm all for pushing forward onward and upward. As a human I do have a lot of affection for and investment in my kind. :) No offense but I don't over estimate our potential though. We have greatness in us, but I don't see that we're becoming any greater over time, just that we continue being who and what we are. I dunno, to me it just seems plainly evident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
((Don't go! (snif)
You're taking away my fun!))
Now why is it so immorally gratuitous for me to tell someone to leave homosexuals alone? ... Oh yeah! Was it because in your mind (such that it is), it would be seemingly hypocritical for me to say that in the name of tolerance, when I seemingly show such intolerance by beating up on Calvin and his followers (including, say, you). First off, notice I said 'seemingly'. As is 'alleged'. As in 'so-called'. Allow me to elaborate.Its one thing to beat up on homosexuals when they are doing nothing substantial to hurt you. Please notice that I said 'substantial'. ... Sorry, but their homosexuality doesn't count. ... Sorry.
Its something else to beat up on a religious doctrine that shows such (if you'll pardon my saying this) intolerance, ... (Nahh I'll use another word that you can relate to better) condescending of groups like: heretics, Unitarians, and the like, and for no better reason than that they believe in a different doctrine than you do, and even have the mitigated gaul to speak of it. The condescension of that nature does deserve to be shown (here comes that blasted word 'liberal' again) intolerance. Its something like the difference between showing intolerance for the Phelps clan everytime they march against American troops killed in Iraq, and showing intolerance for ..... Calvinists who behave themselves and don't get into a snit over Unitarianism? ;)
Damn! You *are* addicted to it. :)
Really? Now ya know, that does sound hilariously funny coming from you. Perhaps I should take my autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement skills from you. The only thing that would fit a man of your (here it comes) Elitist mentality is to become to yourself your own little god almighty. Hell, you have the vocabulary for it. So perhaps this supposed 'humility' towards the Sovereign God is actually either just a facade, or your behavior/attitude is meant to illustrate just what your god is like, ...... and really helping to make my overall case here for me.
Thanks! :)
Now me, I'd vote for the 'just worn out' hanging chad. But hey, that's just me.
And my tidbit is relevent, even in a general way. At the very least, your mention of Patrick Henry is an illustration of religious conservatives using our founding father's statements in an irrelevant manner. Which is so much like the ones who do claim that this is a Christian nation.
In any event, if you do go ((sobs)), ... do improve your table manners. And leave the zoo related innuendoes at home.
P.S., and when did pictures of Tom Daschle come into what I said? Boy, you got one helluva filthy mind! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Socks,
A good set of points you make, but there is a flaw in the argument that you may not realize, and I think its related to the "if someone has no God, then he is more apt to me immoral/amoral" school of thought. (But I must say, your portrayal is *far* more intelligently refreshing than the zoo-based sexual basis that Cynic seems to be fixated on, but it is good that he can admit to being addicted to it, and can thus get help for it. ;) )
No different? Ahh nope. See my points above as to why today differs markedly than 100, 500, 2000 years or more ago. And again, I'm not just talking about the technological part of it.Now see (in relation to the original point of this thread), the "worthless sinner" part is, and has always been, part and parcel of the elitism and separation of humanity, and has done a lot to hold the advancement of humanity back. (As I bet you can see, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it off the table as you did.)
So-o-o, why do you need a god to have all that, and more? Unless you think that part of that *has* to include god, or a heavenly destination beyond death. ... So does that mean those of us who do not have a god/heavenly destination after we die just cannot have a higher purpose than concern for ourselves and our clan? :unsure: How many non-god-believing individuals throughout world history has looked to others than just themselves or their family, who fought for the rights and freedoms of other people, who endeavored to use their skills (including the scientific and technical) for the betterment of mankind as a whole, who refused to use their skills for purposes that they deemed immoral?I got a clue for ya. There were quite a few (ie., many) of said non-god-believing individuals who did those things, irrelevent of the crap society has been fed about the supposed 'live no higher than the animals' atheists. Altho' you put it nicely, I still see it as the same flawed crap. ... No offense intended.
The only difference between how an unbeliever views living for a higher purpose, and how a believer views living for a higher purpose, is that an unbeliever sees no need to include a god in the equation. ... Period.
Given the choice, that is what man automatically chooses to do? Nahh, I know better than that. Some (even many) would choose to do that, but not all. And the fact that they choose to do so means that they aren't forced by nature to do so. ... And in any event, that still doesn't show where they need a god to make them choose the higher path. They just think they do.
The potential is still there. People just need to _decide_ to utilize their potential and *do* it.
I agree.And that shows the unconscious remnants of the 'worthless sinner' doctrine that has been so engrafted into our 'Christian' society, remnants that I still hope that you want to leave off the table.
I guess I'm more an optimist in that regard. ... Altho' acts of human stupidity do have a big influence at diminishing that optimism.
But like the phrase says, "Hope springs eternal!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This is "unsourced", meaning no attempt to find Einstein actually SAYING it has succeeded to date.
(Per his "wikiquote" page-if you can find a specific SOURCE, a place and time where he said it,
we can amend the wikiquote page, but I'd be rather shocked.)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Einstein DID, however, verifiably say the following:
"But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind."
"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."
"Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Your rhetoric directed at the poster implied that he was inclined to do violence to homosexuals. Your demand was gratuitous. I don’t think the poster had come anywhere close to suggesting violence against homosexuals, and, though I do not recall his specific comments, the activist segment of the homosexual community is certainly a fair subject for criticism – particularly considering the heavy handed states of affairs coming about in Europe, in Canada, and on some U. S. college campuses due to gay activists and their fellow travelers obtaining some level of enforcement for their ideas about establishing a new order of “tolerance.” (In national politics in the U.S, the campaign hasn’t been significantly successful, probably due to changes in the political climate caused by outcomes of the 1994, 2000, and 2004 elections.)
Quite the wordsmith, there, ain't you?Yes, I made a play on Patrick Henry’s words in commenting on a subject he was not speaking about (which is a common practice when making a play on words), but your objection still attempts to manufacture an unfounded comparison by building more on my wordplay than it will bear.
The points with the Daschle photo were to illustrate the baselessness of your demand, irritate you, and be humorous in the process. I did not characterize the content of a preposterously hypothetical Daschle photo that one could insolently and gratuitiously pop up and demand that you not sleep with. And, to counter-illustrate your building more on my play on a Patrick Henry quote than it will bear: When you import a word such as filthy to manipulate a discussion with your opponent, beware of making the 'ol Freudian slip!
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hey Garth, thanks for the response. I would say - "worthless sinner" can be looked at and defined and have meaning in this discussion, but it's charged with a lot of information and feeling.
Overall - look at mankind -
Let's assume for a minute there's no god, none of that stuff. No god that's communicated, spoken, informed or even hinted at any of the religious type thought that man cooks up, and entirely on his own. He acts according to those ideas and beliefs of his own accord. And that's produced a lot of bad behavior throughout history.
Where's that coming from? Not god, there's no god in this scenario.
It's man doing it. Somewhere along the line man concluded these things, not once but over and over. In fact history indicates if we got rid of it all today - it would be back again and pretty soon. Man would do it all over again.
The beliefs and the actions are coming from man, to exclude, denigrate, destroy. Man comes up with "godly love" and beats the crap out of anyone who doesn't believe in it. Who's doing that? Not the imaginary god. Man. And he's always done it, in this scenario.
Who's zooming who, here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
In a probably futile attempt to keep at least some of this discussion honest I must point out that this is a very subjective statement. We of course feel that we are living at some high point in evolution, but to be honest I am fairly certain that when man figured out how to make fire and harness its power, they thought the same thing. Similarily when man invented or realized some other life altering thing they also felt as if they were "highly evolved". This proves nothing.
In the religion area; if one were to set aside their Bible (please no-one freak) and just look at history, they would certainly see that from the beginning of recored history, (including cave paintings and the like) man when in a society structure has always had some sort of "god" worship. They have also had a "pecking" order and a leader of sorts. This is nothing new. We just think that we are the end all to beat all. Fifty years from now when we are all feeding the worms...the next generation will think the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
My thoughts eggsackly Eyes. The mans we have today aren't all that different than the mans and womans of the past. Same brain, same mind, same body. Same kinds of actions. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.
Blaming "god" and "religion" needs to be clearly defined. When we do that I think we see that "religous" thought doesn't produce - inherently - a bad result.
The LCD is man. If there's no god and it's all bull cheet at church, fine. That belief has to accept that there's only one root to the problem - the mans and womans. If religion is a bad idea, who's idea was it? to put it another way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Right you are Socks!
It's kind of like that saying, "Guns dont kill people, people kill people." But the problem with mankind has quite often been that they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. So they blame it on someone else. God or whatever they worshipped has always been a safe "out", how often does the diety ever come around and dispute the claim against him/her?
The centuries havent changes this practice at all. Mankind has always (as a group) blamed someone else for what they themselves have caused. The Bible as well as other history books are full of examples. There have been a scant few that have stood up and taken the responsibility and even fewer that have actually had that act recored into history for us to see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic, I don't think you'll ever really leave this place. You'd miss me more than I'd ever miss you. ;)
Wordwolf,
My quote re: Einstein wasn't meant to be authoritative, but a well known phrase that people (even if not Einstein) attributed to stupidity.
As far as Einstein's religious views go (gathered from the related and verifiable quotes I could find), altho' he was rightly angered by some of the atheists of his day, never really communicated himself as anything beyond a pantheist, and not quite a deist. He talked about Spinoza's God, which would have put him (more or less) in the pantheist camp. Then again, Einstein did not like being pigeonholed. (The referring site does contain a lot of info/quotes re: Einstein, albeit I do get this distinct impression that the guy is trying to portray Einstein as more of a believer in 'God' than I suspect he really was. But hey! That's my 2 cents.
I do disagree with Einstein as far as his rendering of 'Freethinker' goes (quote drawn from the same site):
Exclusively an opposition against naive superstition? I wouldn't go that far, but such an opposition, I believe, is a good thing to have. Why not go farther than naive superstition?
"My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature.'"
That's why we ask questions, and why we explore and investigate, to grow in our understanding of that universe, ... rather than go back into the 'safe' cocoon of "We humans are so insignificant, that we have no way of truly understanding the universe.", thus opening up ourselves to the previously mentioned 'song-and-dance conmen / ecclesiastical tin pot dictators' willing to put us under their thumb.
"It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality". ... Odd. It definitely wasn't absent in Carl Sagan, and he was a freethinker to the hilt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Garth, your frothing at the mouth response, your insinuating and reading things into my posts that I never thought, much less said - geez dude, you went totally off the deep end. You have an amazing hatred of God. That's cool, we all know that. I could care less what you believe. But I can't discuss with you when you go nuts like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Socks and Eyes,
Good to have your input.
True as far as that goes. But there is a significant difference between 1) Doing bad things from your own volition and authority, as far as that goes in endeavoring to get away with it, and 2) doing bad things from the standpoint of "God told me to do these things, and God is The Source of all that is Right" yadayada, and that puts a whole new spin to it. I mean, its one thing to challenge an abusive twit. Its a whole 'nother ballgame to challenge an abusive twit who's (supposedly) backed by the Sovereign Creator of the universe.Plus you make the flaw about acting according to one's ideas and beliefs of his own accord. That flaw is one of presumption. The presumption being that it, by default (even generally), will wind up bad. You mean to tell me that such individuals cannot figure out that to get ahead, show progress, and all, one needs to show thought and concern towards others? ... Like we need God to boom out of the sky: "THOU MUST RESPECT THY FELLOW HUMAN BEING!", otherwise we are incapable of learning it? ... Yeah, right!
Its Yet Another Variation of the Unbelievers in God Cannot Know to Do Moral Things fallacy, ... and Yes Virginia, it is a fallacy.
Of course he's always done it, ... due to the idea of some deity who wants mindless obedience to said exclusion, denigration, and destruction. (That's one big reason why I don't believe in said deity any more) One possible solution to this scenario: Get rid of the bad idea, and (as Eyes alluded to) make the twits responsible for their crap. Then again, if the accounts in the bible are any indicator (particularly the accounts where god has his people kill those that worship other gods, and where those who do not accept Jesus are thrown into the lake of fire), and if that deity is for real, ... then what does that say about the god coming up with those ideas. If that god is real, we can't really say that its just man doing it now, can we? ... Either way, the religious side is screwed, ... right? (And Yet Another reason for my disbelief)
Eyes,
Hell, this whole discussion is quite honest; both sides (well, maybe Cynic and his zoo are the exception here ;) ). We just disagree on the particulars. ... Heh! I love it when the "You aren't being honest!" quip is thrown out by some people, particularly when they hear something that they don't like, so they presume that its dishonest. <_<How about relative? True, a lot of crap is still being done today, but what about 100 years ago. Was it really 'more moral, more evolved' back then? How about 500 years ago? 1,000 years? 5,000 years? What things (and again, I ain't talking technological) that we enjoy and take for granted, did we NOT have back during those times?
1) the right to speak out against our government,
2) the right to elect our leaders
3) the concept of equality between the races, the sexes, and of homosexuals
4) the concept of mental illness as something to be treated as opposed to someone being possessed with demons
and to be ran out of town/killed
5) the exploring of the entire world and realizing of what it consists of, rather than believing that if you sail out far enough on the ocean, you'll fall off the edge
6) the usage of science as a tool of discovery, rather than simply relying on priests in long robes quoting from their holy books for the information
Like I said, I think you guys are allowing yourselves to be snowed by all the garbage that is being done by allowing it to obscure the good actions/potential that is being done/can be done by people. And this "I am nothing but a sinner incapable of doing any good on my own" mentality that is unfortunately engrained in society, provides a seriously warped view to that end, as well as contributing *seriously* towards people not holding themselves accountable for their actions, ... wouldn't you say?
Speaking of which: "I would say - 'worthless sinner' can be looked at and defined and have meaning in this discussion, but it's charged with a lot of information and feeling."
Aww c'mon Socks. You aren't wussing out on me now, are ya? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hhmmm, is it really me frothing at the mouth? (checks my mouth and keyboard to make sure no spittle is on it --- Nope! None.
)
Or could it be you (all too conveniently) projecting that image onto me because of content of my posts, ... and topped off my accusing me of having hatred of an entity I don't believe exists. Hey! I don't believe Santa exists either, but I don't go around hating said mythical being. (I do hate the Xmas musak in the malls tho'.
Sorry about that!)
Yet Another Fallacy (commonly used unfortunately) posted by someone who most likely 'cares' what I believe (especially when I post said beliefs ;) ) than she 'cares' to admit. ... Ya think?
Sunesis, I post this way because this is my style. My 'schtick'. It's up front, straight forward, and I come by it honestly (believe it or not) in a you-know-where-I'm-coming-from approach. Not in the most diplomatic of styles, I'll grant you that, but at least I'm not lying to you as pertains to what views I hold. I've posted this way many a time, and I find it ironic that I don't hear a peep from you, *particularly* when I blast Weirwille for the scumbag that he is. Not a peep of complaint. Not one ounce of "I'm sorry, but you're too deep end for me!" high brow.
Frankly, I've been quite calm in my composing of these posts of mine (and quite amused in my responses to Cynic :lol: ). At the very least, I've been no more emotional than you when you posted your rebuttal to what I wrote (at the top of page 2). And, again, I hear not one protestation from you to Cynic's clearly prurient and insulting posts in my direction, and his apparent pride in such. Where's your high brow then?
But the thing that you really find so 'deep end' is the content of my posts, not necessarily the style, so spare me the Miss Manners, ... please. ;)
Heh! You think we atheists are the ones being so offensive to Christians? Hell lady, even Madeline Murray O'Hair, in her worst moments, couldn't even begin to compare with the s**t many Christians said about, ... and did (and still do) to, atheists. For example, how would you like it if the President of the United States stated outright that Christians/religious people cannot be viewed as patriotic, because this is an unbelieving nation, hmmm? (and I can provide the source of a former President saying just that, in reverse, about atheists!) ... Suffice it to say (and I'd bet $$$$ on this) that you'd be FAR more pi$$ed than I have ever sounded on this board, if such a statement from the President did occur.
So even if you do detect some anger in my posts, well maybe there's a reason, perhaps? .... Or is that 'too deep' for you? <_<
And I don't think you're incapable of dealing with the points therein even with the 'anger', even if its to challenge them with 'The Truth', (if you indeed do have it). Socks and Eyes have been dealing with my posts with no problem. You're an intelligent individual like they are, so it shouldn't be any problem for you.
P.S., As far as where I have "insinuated and read things into your posts", I was addressing your points re:
1) where you thought we weren't progressing like others claimed,
2) where you didn't think that religion was the cause of elitism,
3) where you thought I was being dishonest with my arguments, where I was addressing points that are relevant to the thread topic.
You have made accusations of me of reading things into your posts, and those accusations are misreading themselves. Such as: I never accused you of saying that it was wrong for people to determine their own destiny. And never on some of your other accusations of 'reading into' your posts either. And that goes for your charge of me being dishonest.
So take a chill pill. ... Or maybe a beer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Garth, we're gettin' to the nitty gritty now! I'm saving my big guns for the corral, only have time for this much now. It's rainin' out here on the West Coast!!!!
You're describing a process of thinking and decision making - the god told me, divine guidance stuff - that by your own construct includes no god or divine guidance. Look at this for a sec in that light -
Who's idea is that then? Not the Deity-That-Doesn't-Exist. Who designs mindless obedience to exclude, denigrate, destroy? Not the Ungod.
Mans does. Manses and womanses.
Man is therefore the flawed component and I think it's time to own up. Don't blame "god", there is none. Don't blame preachers or "believers", they're always here, always have been and always will be if history is any indication.
Man comes up with those crazee ideas, man hates, man designs gods in his own image and apparently not his best side. ("do these rituals make my deity look fat?")
You in learned and evolved wisdom have concluded that it's misguided and wrong. Great.
You're part of the manses species is doing well then. The same brain, mind and body that produced that produces the dented can of fruit known as "religion". The essence of the stuff, the capacity is the same.
I know you want to take credit and part in the evolved successes of manses. I just think you should take the same for the devolved condition. It's a wash. If manses is getting any better, don't worry - whatever you contribute will be balanced out. It always will be - it's not the actions, the things, the stuff. It's the species - the capacity is what it is.
I have no problem recognizing that - no wishful thinking, no pie in the sky maybe it'll get better if we all just try harder. There's no human tooth fairy going to grab me by my boot straps and pull me along to a brighter future where there are spandex jackets for everyone.
It will get better, and I certainly hope so. But somewhere there will be the other side of the bell curve, not carrying their weight. Because they're human. We are what we are.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Socks,
You are partly correct, in that it's man that concocted the whole thing, including the god concept. ;)
But to take the blame totally off the concept itself is flawed, ... as that concept, by its very nature, inspires people to act abusively and with the backing of a perfectly moral entity.
And there is a difference between that, and acting abusively simply because one's a selfish perp.
See the difference?
Good talking to you tho'. You're a good ol' bean, ... don't care what Cynic sez about ya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Thanks Garth. Anyone as talented as you can't be all bad.
I behold a paradox that I simply can't get around, with your logic. And it may be that the paradox is an answer we have to live with.
The concept - if it's flawed, who owns it? Let's get that guy and sit 'im down. Or her.
I'm taking the atheist's stance here in this, which may not be your own exactly. I am in fact, not an atheist, for these very reasons. To be so, I would have to say there's no "god", no external personality or intelligence involvd in all of "this".
If there's no god, and we've developed religious beliefs on our own, the human race is seriously flawed. Maybe not you. Certainly not me. But I think it's healthy to recognize then that at any time, man has the capacity to live seriously deluded and far below the standard of a healthy frog or well raised duck. Man can't be left alone for a minute or he'll go to standard and start worshipping comets, or lightning or who knows what. Once he learns what lightning really is he'll stop and harness electricity but in time he'll use it to record and reproduce endless versions of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" and at some point put everyone in jail that doesn't agree. He'll make a spear to kill his food and eat better and grow stronger and end up shooting everyone in sight one day. That's the human condition, no matter how far I back it up. We can do good, and we often do. Until we don't.
Life sucks when it isn't cool. Life's cool - when it doesn't suck. For the vast majority of mankind throughout history, life has at best, balanced somewhere inbetween, and man tends to bring it on hisself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Socks,
Basically, I think that the god concept, throughout time, is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. The desire to explain the unexplainable isn't the seriously flawed part; what the hell, we're curious critters. Or even trying to put it into a form of "there is some form of invisible being up there that must be controlling things, 'cuz I sure as hell can't explain it, so that must be what it is." kind of explaination might be flawed, but it isn't necessarily harmful, ... not as long as one leaves the door of scrutiny open, and where people are free to accept/reject as they see fit, ... well hell, have all the invisible friends ya want. The abusive flaws come into play when said invisible friend becomes (according to the Doctrine of Invisible Friend) controlling, abusive, and anal, and as a result, the followers become controlling, abusive, and anal, ... and Elitist. ;)And what if those religious beliefs were true, but they depict said REAL invisible friend as controlling, abusive, and quite anal as the doctrine says? One who _demands_ worship, ... or else? One with the Power to wipe us all out on his whim? Whether we really deserve it or not? ... Or worse? (And look at how for we have ... 'evolved' on this test run? :unsure: )
Maybe that'll help clear up my point as to why I wouldn't follow such an 'invisible friend' even if it were true. ... And that example of said friend would show us a better alternative than having no god? Of having a higher path of evolution for our society?
Nahhh! Darwin's monkeys are cooler.
Actually, quite a number of atheists take a different approach. The type of atheist you mention are known as 'strong atheists'. They say with certainty that there is no god, or can't be a god. Note the absoluteness of the claim. There is another branch called 'weak atheists'. They don't say "There is no God" as tho' they can prove it. Rather, they take the "I can't prove that god doesn't exist, but as far as I'm concerned, unless you can prove to me this god of yours, I won't believe in it." See the difference? One makes a claim as tho its fact, the other just won't believe until claim of deity is verified and proven. One reason this is is because the 'weak atheist' knows you cannot prove a negative, also you put the burden of proof on the shoulders of the theist (where it really belongs IMNSHO), whereas the strong atheist puts himself in a position to prove that there is no god, and all they have is their ability (or maybe lack thereof) to prove their point.
Thusly I'm in the 'weak atheist' category. I'll leave it up to the theist to prove his point. ... Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm lazy that way. ;) ..... OH NO!! I'M PROVING SOCKS THEORY THAT MAN'S BASIC NATURE IS TO BE LAZY!!!! :o
Yee GODS man!! Now you gone and totally *shattered* my utopian world! ((snif))
Everything was going honky-dorey until you brought THAT up. 
Anywho, this was fun. Why I even got a good laugh from Cynic and his friends at the zoo. I think I'll step back from this for a while until Sunesis isn't mad at me no mo'.
You are gangs of fun! Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, this has been kickin' it, at any rate. I'm happy to exchange thoughts here with you. The orignal topic was elitism and how judging others based on their beliefs divides, I think I put that right.
Man does what he does and as I stated I feel it's two steps up and 3 back all the time. He thinks he's making progress but he doesn't really know. There's nothing to rate it against, "this" is all we know. So it stands to our reason we'd think we're doing fine. We're grading our own homework. ("this isn't his best work but Jimmy's really trying. B+, he'll do better once he stops hanging around with those losers").
The most universal of belief systems will still have some standards. If it's "do as thou wilt", that's a standard. It it's "do as thou will and bring no harm", that's a standard. If it's "do as thou will and attempt to do good", that's a standard.
Here's the way I see it - coherence, unity, is a process, a result. If something is truly "one" it's one one, not two or three things joined. True unity is organic, intrinsic.
When something's joined there's agreement. Two, three pieces come together.
Contradictory belief systems don't come together and never join. They can co-exist, in disagreement until they cross paths, and there will always be disagreement when they do.
I think to not recognize that and accept it is a bad idea. We may never manage those differences successfully. There will be failure. The purest success will be "truth", and truth, whatever that is, will contradict, and vice versa, anything that isn't true. It's so natural and normal I can't see how it's debatable.
I don't see how, in our current state of mannishness, anything else is possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick and Sarah
Hello Eyesopen,
Yes God is not confined.
Exception; each person confines God what they are able to fathom.
Christians keep God in a certain box, as do agnostics, atheists, spiritualists, ect, ect.
Since we are quoting Einstein.
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
A lot of us have progressed to the point where we know for sure, that we just know enough, to "stand in awe".
I have progressed right out of Christianity, and retain much of the Spiritual goodness that I received, while bound to that religion.
1 Thessalonians 5:21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Good advice from Paul.
Just started a new thread from the content of another.................it is a discussion.
I have no problem disagreeing with folks, and I spect folks have no problem disagreeing with me. I'm not a messy discusser.............
Wow though, the turn this thread took.
As our elitism topples we progress, and not until.
Sometimes we get left behind, because the world just is not going to wait forever for us to progress. One thing is sure........progress. Jump on or get run over.
Patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Hi Patrick,
In my opinion there is no exception. God cannot be confined. Mankind as you say keeps him in a box. From our limited viewpoint you are correct. God Himself is not confined. Man limits his own "blessings". God simply works within the confines of man's ability to understand/believe...whatever you want to call it.
As an example: A person does not shrink so that they can get the contents out of a potato chip bag, they simply reach in with their hand and extract the contents. Similar with God, he does not shrink simply because man cannot fathom how big He is.
Next point that you addressed...perhaps you misunderstood my statement. I was not saying that you were arguing or even encouraging an argument. I was responding to another poster's comment about arguing and adding my own comment about it being normal, expected and ok. I also made a comment about it being best if it didnt get messy. All of it was simply as I said a statement in response to another poster.
I agree that this is good advice from Paul, but I fail to see the connection in your response. Perhaps it is too early yet for my brain to have engaged.
Garth,
I wish that I could have continued our discussion with you and Socks yesterday. But what I read from you both was very interesting. The rain here caused some local flooding and I spent a good deal of my day soaking wet filling while sand bags. So I was unable to continue our discussion. Perhaps next time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
The relevant part is from about six minutes in, but enjoy the whole clip (the whole performance for that matter).
This comes with the usual disclaimer of 'adult' language, etc.
HERE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.