The Fremen Mirage
2 weeks 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.
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.
Perhaps we can get around to actually discussing atheism?We are discussing atheism that is: why we are not a believer in the various gods, God or G-d that we are respectfully asked to learn more about, distainfully demanded to learn more about, proselytized to believe in, forced to believe in, or forced to pretend to believe in to avoid ostracism at best. Historically, non-belief is punishable by torture and death. Whether that continues today is, shall we say, arguable.
rockyJew
Which do you imagine are 'critical stories' in the Torah texts?I am an atheist. I see nothing in any fable religious or secular that is anything but allegorical or occasionally ironic. Allegory must teach something of value that bears some relationship to the details of the story or it would not persist as a part of the lore of at least a tribe or subset of humanity. It is not necessary to believe that the wolf in Little Red Riding hood was anything but allegorical to understand that young women should be wary of strangers. Even strange women. Female wolves are as predatory as the males.
As you are well aware, JC, one of the Jewish principles of Biblical interpretation is that the farther back in time the narrative covers, the less 'historical' and the more allegorical the account is seen as being. JewOne
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.
Again, I challenge you to take a look at just what the DNA Information coding and non-coding system is. The signature of Yahweh is there in every single "jot and tittle" of that three dimensional CODE-SYSTEM. Codes DON'T evolve! You need to deal with that FACT! --YECSorry, Yahweh, God or whoever that misanthropist was that Moses invented to control his people, was not around a few billion years ago when that first twisted strand of goo found a lipid bubble to live in and start the process of divide and conquer that resulted in the zoo, originally one celled replicating organisms that found out that cooperation beat fending alone in the difficult environment of the early earth. Those cooperating organisms made their DNA better and more efficient at eating goo and replicating, until eventually Moses, Yahweh, Blü and I evolved.
beliefnet
If you have one, what is your standard for measuring human worth?
OFS
beliefnet
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. |
Beliefnet
jcarlinbn
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. J'Carlin
|
Argumentative Jew wrote:I don't know of a 'Jahwist' faith community - so I'm not sure at all what you're talking about there.
Jun 7, 2015 -- 7:01PM, LDS wrote:My thing is that too many people - including certain posters - are so caught up in their pet projects that they're starting to lose perspective.
JCarlin: Humans have objective moral standards based on evolutionary imperatives for the survival of the species: Altruism, compassion, empathy; shunning of cheaters, liars, and sociopaths; are all cross species needs for survival.
El Apologist: No, evolution also produced people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and they were very successful at survival for a time so how can you condemn them since their source of morality is the same as yours? And all those things are just chemical reactions in your brain, one set of chemical reactions are no better than another set. And all those standards are just based on irrational sentimentality for the human species, there is nothing special about humans so you are being irrational by favoring human survival if atheistic evolution is true. So they are not objective.
JCarlin: jc: Social species have other evolutionary imperatives including respect for vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies which is where God's dysfunctional moral standards are promulgated as "TRUTH™" including such atrocities as love the bully and abuser because God loves everybody. Of course it helps if the bully or abuser is a male in the image of God and can therefore identify with all the bullying and abuse documented in Scripture most of which is ordered by God and executed by men.
El Apologist: No, God teaches that bullies and abusers should be punished, as it plainly taught in the Mosaic law and even Christ told His disciples to buy a sword for self defense. He also taught to love your enemies, and one way to love them is to mete out justice on them not necessarily you personally but you should report them to the proper authorities as Paul teaches in Romans 13.
Skeptical atheists are believers just like most people. Their conceptual blocks are as impermeable as a fundamentalist Christian or a Republican. The only real difference is their BS do not involve God. They are as capable of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la, la, la I can't hear you when confronted with evidence of things like esp and other paranormal abilities as any Christian.christine3:It seems most atheists here get a reaction when they read the words paranormal, supernormal, superconscious, supernatural.
May 20, 2015 -- 7:32PM, Blü wrote:JCarlin
See #44
Okay, I've re-read #44.
No evidence of esp confronted me.
What did I miss?
#44 says that you have never and never will encounter evidence for paranormal phenomena. Your brain is incapable of processing evidence you may have encountered in the past or will encounter in the future. It will always concoct an apologetic that certain things cannot happen in reality and if they appear to have happened that must be the result of something else. Delusion, falsehood, or misinterpretation of the data.May 21, 2015 -- 2:46AM, Trollish wrote:Same here. Read #44 and encountered no evidence for paranormal phenomenon.
Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die.
YEC: I would think almost all of the Atheist living in a free society are to one degree or another.It is hard to be a Christian if not a theist. The entire dogma of Christianity is centered around groveling at the feet of God whether it is Jesus, the Trinity, or "Thy God" of Jesus. Atheists do not grovel at anything or anybody. Nice try at the Great Commission, but abject failure.
In a Godless society moral rules are derived from evolutionary necessity and its corollary tribal living necessities expanded to larger societies as required. While there is no absolute law governing morality, humanistic empathy is a firm foundation.YEC: For a Godless society there is no moral rule. Natural evolutionism is the rule. Survival of the fittest. There is no absolute law in which a standard can be erected.
Yep. In the words of Forrest Church one had best live a life worth dying for. It is all anybody has. Theist or atheist.YEC: You are born, live and die and "puff"...it's all over.
YEC: In a free society the Atheist follow the moral teachings of Jesus and I might add, the bible. They know the morals work. They are tried and proven. If Jesus never appeared, if the bible never existed....if our laws didn't reflect those morals, where would we be?Your remarks about Jesus are pretty close to the mark. The rest of the Bible morality is either obsolete or dysfunctional in a modern society.
Sorry. There are many atheist Christians, Jews, Muslims, and members of other theistic religions, that enjoy the traditions, rituals and tribal gatherings associated with the faith, but without the faith in God. Atheists without a religion are not among them. In general we (I include myself among them) have developed our own meaning and purpose for being alive and having to die. But in the words of johnbigboote on the old boards it is a One Person Religion.YEC: You said, "They're Out There, I Just Haven't Found Any Yet"...the truth is, you are one of them.
Mormon wrote:And once again, you cherry-pick in order to try and make a point.
Atheist Now, that is a joke!
Is there another religion whose members cherry-pick the scripture to the extent the LDS do? I very much doubt it.
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.
At this point I think it would be better referred to as God Design to avoid the Dover crowd, and to leave undefined where God entered the picture.May 12, 2015 -- 2:14AM, Roymond wrote:I wish you could have visited our Intelligent Design club in college. It was all people who had come to religion not by any assumptions, but via science.