2 months ago
Random thoughts on the blue highways.
You never know what you will find on the blue highways. Particularly when the choice at an intersection is controlled by the roll of a die. About the only rule is that highway onramps don't count as an intersection. You don't even have to roll the die. If one road looks interesting, go for it.
You may have knowledge of Donald Duck but can Donald Duck give you knowledge and wisdom? Answer: no, therefore Donald Duck has no objective existence he is just a cartoon character.willieHindu
Today a growing segment of young adult males will not achieve the material and social success necessary to be attractive mates and form households. By way of comparison, a generation ago in his mid-20s my father had a house, a wife, two kids and a stable job things I was unable to achieve until my ’30s. ... Today Increased economic opportunity and higher educational attainment for women has removed the economic need to be tied down to undesirable dudes. This is a good thing for almost everyone. But for those on the outside, however, it turns social awkwardness and the tail end of the achievement bell curve into a prison planet of isolation. And that generates rage.
note: "Incel" a name they call themselves, meaning "involuntary celibate."Perhaps the rage comes from the tail end of the curve. The more concerning issue is that the middle of the curve for males is incel. (This may not be a new phenomenon.) Women now have control not only of not only who they will have a baby with but who they will fuck. Women it seems have little incentive to have sex per se, hence scriptural admonitions to "pleasure" their husband once a week.
Sep 6, 2015 -- 9:52PM, wrote:In the same respects since our very first example of something that is true and certain is our self/self-awareness. By what logic would I hop to accept anything else as being more certain or true?
I think this is important because when we attempt to measure our self/self-awareness. It cannot be found, it holds no weight and with heavy scrutiny it doesn't even exist.Utiltheo
If they are athiest murders they are clearly INSANE.
If they are christian murders its the religion's fault, - RCCU
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
So, I'll ask you again: Can you think of any new insight gained from calling it the 'God meme' than we had when we called it the 'God concept?'freespirit
The hard part for theists is admitting they have become the moral source they wanted to worship. In fact, they are now in a position to condemn their god as immoral based on secular principles of human rights. Kwinters
God, god(s), and goddesses (henceforth referred to as God) is defined as an imaginary creation of a human mind or a group of human minds that has some powers over a defied group or tribe that persist essentially unchanged through several generations of the group or tribe. These powers are mediated and interpreted by a group of specialized members of the group, priests, or infrequently priestesses (henceforth referred to as priests) who have been given the power by the group to determine from the tradition what it is that God wants for and from the group.
God is endowed with powers, usually supernatural, to affect the lives of the defined group or tribe by enforcing moral precepts in this life or after death; protecting the tribe or group from "enemies" by granting exceptional skills or immunity to an individual or group of individuals in contact with the enemy; is normally in the form of an idealized human; is associated with certain rituals of worship which recognize the importance of God to the people; and is frequently identified as the creator of the group or of all humans.
Gods may be examined by scientific methods by observing the group rituals associated with group solidarity, moral teaching, and the protection of the group from predation, either natural, (unusual weather, e.g.) or other groups of humans. If the rituals identify an imaginary being or group of beings that imaginary entity is by definition God. The properties of God can be identified from the rituals defining the God.
If the group rituals are naturally centered or human centered it can be determined by scientific observation that the group has no God.
In short God is an imaginary entity, interpreted by priests from tradition, that determine the mores of and protects a defined group of humans.
The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo. The Credo describes what God is: One God, the omnipotent father, who created everything, and the Son who is one with God who came down from heaven and became a real person by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. (No hanky-panky by God, just magic and apparently a little help from Joseph and/or David, and/or God's eternal sperm bank.)
It describes what he did: Was sacrificed to expiate the sins of all men and was resurrected to once again become one God.
It tells why: so all will be resurected to enjoy eternal life.
Then comes the hook: God will judge all, and only those baptized for the forgiveness of sin will get the goodies.
There is nothing imaginary or unreal in that for Catholics. God is more important for them than Blü, J'Carlin, or any other person with the possible exception of the parish priest.Jul 20, 2015 -- 1:01PM, wrote:The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo. J'Carlin
"objective existence" ... "for Catholics"
Do you even understand the meanings of words you use? Rev atheist
The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo. The Credo describes what God is: One God, the omnipotent father, who created everything, and the Son who is one with God who came down from heaven and became a real person by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. (No hanky-panky by God, just magic and apparently a little help from Joseph and/or David, and/or God's eternal sperm bank.)Blü:Yes, gods don't have objective existence.
Jul 15, 2015 -- 9:50PM, Blü wrote:Which brings us to this thread, where we consider a being who, the story says, lives in heaven but was incarnated on earth to proclaim the imminent Kingdom - yet knew nothing more about reality than his time and place did. The report (or tale, as the case may be) matches human tendencies perfectly.
Another way to detect thought is through EEG. The thoughts produced and measured by MRI admittedly a physical process can be observed to be synchronized by mirror neurons, musical expression, and synchrony of movements in animals and people. These thought patterns can control computers, prosthetics, etc. and the computer interface can process the information to incorporate feedback to refine control like being able to pick up a raw egg.
Is it not possible that another brain can process, change, remember and reason on, and store the information of this synchronized information? The information must be physically created originally by a brain, but is the result not observably "pure thought?"
My observation is that God is nothing more than repeated and memorized fictional reality data created over time by people and incorporated into religious ritual and dogma.
2/2/2004 1:52 AM
|1 out of 26|
Tr1nity, TheRaUch, Mas, and other advocates of BS (Belief System(s), thanks Acira and TheRaUch.).
First. I have no doubt that God exists for you. I have no doubt that for tr1nity Christ lives.
Second. When I open a mass I have no doubt that Kyrie is there to Eleison and that Christe is right behind Herm to help. Indeed it is proven each time it happens, as neither will strike dead the soprano with the atrocious vibrato that is destroying the beauty of the music. They are also able to make the believers in the audience, and yes, even the believers singing, not hear it. Just as they help believers not see the atrocious art in some of the crucifixes they have on their walls and around their necks.
Belief in God can be empowering. However, many threads on this board have been presenting a powerful demonstration of one of the greatest dangers of belief. They are trying to convince a rather skeptical group that a belief in God can be transferred to a BS that defies all reason, and then circularly use the BS to find God.
Mediators for God have exhorted people that if they believe, God will be real for them. Even though they must ignore the evidence of their senses, and must not expect rational evidence to believe.
So far, so good. If one stops with God advising and helping to manage one's life, and one trusts only God to sort out which parts of the BS that are being thrown at them are true, the chances are excellent that they will have a spiritually rewarding life.
Then the trouble starts.
The mediator says God inspires ME, Believe Me. This is easy to do, especially if God does inspire the mediator. Unfortunately, this is also semantically equivalent to the classic con man's "trust me."
At this point it is critical to understand that it is the mediator's interpretation of God's inspiration that hesh is preaching. A believer must check that interpretation with God directly before transferring belief to the mediator.
By the way this is where most atheists and agnostics part company with believers. It may be reasonable to ignore sensual and rational evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient entity, especially when the entity cares about everyone.
It is definitely not reasonable to ignore sensual and rational evidence to believe a guy in a fancy dress, no matter how impressive the pulpit is. Ultimately the balcony of the Vatican is no more persuasive if God (or the evidence) says bad BS than the dirty top of the cardboard box with three bent cards on it. Please note that neither is necessarily unpersuasive for some who wish to believe.
But once belief in an omnipotent, omniscient entity that cares about everyone is transferred to real people whose BS may have personal agendas that conflict the best interests of others, a BS can and does get real ugly.
Some threads here are advocating some really ugly BS. No God I have ever had occasion to believe in would approve anything about them. It is clear to me that some mediators behind them are pushing extremely antisocial BS. I find the motives to be pretty transparent: To acquire political power and bling-bling to impress the flock. The three-card monte dealer is at least honest about herm scam.
May 12, 2015 -- 4:35PM, JCarlin wrote:"So that is how God does it!" is essentially not conceptually different from "That is how it works!" I am not sure anyone could find a scientist in any field that could prove that the Higgs is not indeed the God boson.
Response: As Laplace rightly said, the 'God' hypothesis is simply unnecessary.
There is simply no good reason to advance the baroque assumption that there is a God, let alone ask "how" the supposed entity did anything.