Good Old Neon Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I think my problem with many of the posts in this thread are twofold.1) language like "cleans his clock" reeks of the peanut gallery who shows up to watch the after-school fight. I don't understand the need to have a victor in this discussion.2) There's no attempt by either side in this thread to seek what the other person means. If you read the Sullivan/Harris discussion, they civilly seek each other's definitions and terms, when possible, rather than make the easy assumption to play "gotcha!" Well, I could have said Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Well, I could have said Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Not to mention, suggesting that one man gave another man oral sex does not often connote victory for the man said to be performing the act. Oh, I'm pretty sure performing a good old fashioned knob-gobbling is a victory in jnicks book. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 So, which of the two of you is gobbing the other Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Can we start talking about things like the collective unconscious, quantum physics and the intersection of consciousness and matter now? The SkyGod debate has come down to a circle jerk. A couple more posts and you'll be citing Hitler. Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Can we start talking about things like the collective unconscious, quantum physics and the intersection of consciousness and matter now? The SkyGod debate has come down to a circle jerk. A couple more posts and you'll be citing Hitler. gob knobbing does not a circle jerk make.... or sumthin' Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 If you keep picking at it...it'll never heal Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 gob knobbing Whenever dudes on a message board start speculating who gobbles whose knob, it's a circle jerk. Speaking of which: A five dollar virtual bill to anyone that comes up with an image of National Lampoon's Boy's Life cover parody. Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Can I speculate on who in present company I'd like to have gob my knob? Hint; they didn't get a 1400 on their SATs. Link to post Share on other sites
M. (hristine Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 You are so reported. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (pssst...it's just a joke) Link to post Share on other sites
Panther Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Maybe you could flesh our your posts more? I'm not following your train of thought. the notion of GOD(as in the creator not a diety)is more logical than the atheist notion of NO GOD simply by virtue of existence.Basically if their is creation it is illogical to state that their is no creator. this has nothing to do with the atheist vs religion debate but that is a stupid debate everyone knows the church is evil ever here of a false prohet.And yes the bible dose make sense if you take it as a story its very complicated and easy to misinterprate but their is a meaning behind it.Most atheist aren't intrested in that discussion they would rather ask dumb quesstion about christianity like how can the earth be created in 7 days?duhhh Link to post Share on other sites
orchestra Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 the notion of GOD(as in the creator not a diety)is more logical than the atheist notion of NO GOD simply by virtue of existence.Basically if their is creation it is illogical to state that their is no creator. Well, that certainly is more words but I'm not sure you actually stated why it is more logical to believe in an intelligent creator besides noting that, yes, we do exist. But why is existence more logical under a creator? Don't you then get wrapped up in the debate of where the creator came from? Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all. And yes the bible dose make sense if you take it as a story its very complicated and easy to misinterprate but their is a meaning behind it. Well, most books make sense as stories. Not sure if many people actually go around saying the Bible doesn't "make sense" except perhaps in its claims over reality and perhaps its problems with internal consistency. But sure, the storyline is pretty straight-forward. Link to post Share on other sites
orchestra Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I have another. People have said many times in this thread that Science explains the "how" but not the "why". They usually say in the same post that we need Religion for the "why". (As if Science would ever be suggested to solve every problem you have in your own life, and also as if Religion is the only thing you can find strength through belief in or find solace in.) I can't wrap my head around this one. Anyone want to go up to bat for this? Because it seems like a really strange idea to me, or at the very least a weak argument. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I have another. People have said many times in this thread that Science explains the "how" but not the "why". They usually say in the same post that we need Religion for the "why". (As if Science would ever be suggested to solve every problem you have in your own life, and also as if Religion is the only thing you can find strength through belief in or find solace in.) I can't wrap my head around this one. Anyone want to go up to bat for this? Because it seems like a really strange idea to me, or at the very least a weak argument. It's a response to the notion that science invalidates or replaces religion. Science does a lot, but it does not answer any philosophical questions. Those type of questions are not testable or able to be objectively answered. Just like religion, they require subjectivity, preference, and the willingness to believe things of which you aren't 100% certain. Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Apparently it's too much to ask from most people that they also require reason and probability. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Apparently it's too much to ask from most people that they also require reason and probability. What's the probability that utilitarianism is the correct ethical system? Link to post Share on other sites
orchestra Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 It's a response to the notion that science invalidates or replaces religion. Science does a lot, but it does not answer any philosophical questions. Those type of questions are not testable or able to be objectively answered. Just like religion, they require subjectivity, preference, and the willingness to believe things of which you aren't 100% certain. Well sure. And I don't think Science should replace Religion. But I was wondering why you need Religion at all for those philosophical questions? I mean, can't you just read... philosophy? Or talk about it with friends? Or just decide what you want to believe on your own? You don't really need the whole mythological side of things, all of the characters and codes of conduct, do you? And if no one can know a definitive objective answer for this kind of stuff then why bother at all? Why not just decide you believe in yourself and your own happiness and that is enough and live your life? I think some people in this thread have said that we need Religion to answer certain questions--but these questions are unanswerable! The answers you are given are no more credible than the answers you make up in your head! They say that Religion fills in the "Why", but the universe doesn't have a reason. Why must you decide on choosing an answer? And... you can choose answers and figure out your own reasons without Religion. Sure people do use Religion to fill in these spaces they are compelled to fill, but Religion isn't the only thing that can do that. Jumble of words, sorry. Hope it is decipherable. Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I have another. People have said many times in this thread that Science explains the "how" but not the "why". They usually say in the same post that we need Religion for the "why". (As if Science would ever be suggested to solve every problem you have in your own life, and also as if Religion is the only thing you can find strength through belief in or find solace in.) I can't wrap my head around this one. Anyone want to go up to bat for this? Because it seems like a really strange idea to me, or at the very least a weak argument.It's pretty simple. For most people, it's about personal faith. It's both personal and about faith. No argument needed to justify; doesn't have much to do with reason. And for most people religion isn't the only thing they find strength in; it's one of the things. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Well sure. And I don't think Science should replace Religion. But I was wondering why you need Religion at all for those philosophical questions? I mean, can't you just read... philosophy? Or talk about it with friends? Or just decide what you want to believe on your own? You don't really need the whole mythological side of things, all of the characters and codes of conduct, do you? And if no one can know a definitive objective answer for this kind of stuff then why bother at all? Why not just decide you believe in yourself and your own happiness and that is enough and live your life? I think some people in this thread have said that we need Religion to answer certain questions--but these questions are unanswerable! The answers you are given are no more credible than the answers you make up in your head! They say that Religion fills in the "Why", but the universe doesn't have a reason. Why must you decide on choosing an answer? And... you can choose answers and figure out your own reasons without Religion. Sure people do use Religion to fill in these spaces they are compelled to fill, but Religion isn't the only thing that can do that. Jumble of words, sorry. Hope it is decipherable. If you can fill all those voids without religion, good for you. If others require religion, good for them. Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 the notion of GOD(as in the creator not a diety)is more logical than the atheist notion of NO GOD simply by virtue of existence.Basically if their is creation it is illogical to state that their is no creator. I personally have already answered this to the previous page. Apparently you don't mind having a discussion, or answering relevant points? I repeat: what is the logic of thinking there is a creator because there's a creation? Your creator is what, exactly? A creation, too? Who created the creator? Why a creation couldn't be self-created? Doesn't it sound obvious to you that God is just something the man conceived for the only reason he doesn't find answers to questions which are beyond his perceptive faculties? And isn't it obvious to you that so far, only science brougth answers to our questions since the man exists? If there must be a logic, it's to think that science is the only way to find answers. Personally, I define my atheism like this: I have no need to believe in God, there is no reason to believe in. The belief in God is only a matter of culture and tradition. As long as it's peaceful, no problem with me. I would probably be Christian if I had evolved in a Christian environment. But it happened I grew up in France, where the 20th Century was dominated, culturally, by a big intellectual wave of anti-Christianism, due to some bad images of the Church in our country. We had some great personas, though: very lately we lost Soeur Emmanuelle, who was 99. She incarnated the best of what the Church should be: generosity, help for the poor, for the helpless, etc, etc But in the 20th Century, a lot of young people rebelled against the Church. A song of Jacques Brel gives a pretty good idea of this rebellion : here's a clip with English subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7G6XOU3sE4 PS: excuse my odd english at times (I'm aware of it!) Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Aren't you the one who liked that train wreck of a Lucinda Williams album? Link to post Share on other sites
Littlebear Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Aren't you the one who liked that train wreck of a Lucinda Williams album? Sure, I always loved train wrecks, it's part of my culture as well. Here's one of Paris Gare Montparnasse, 1895. A great souvenir. Link to post Share on other sites
Panther Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Well, that certainly is more words but I'm not sure you actually stated why it is more logical to believe in an intelligent creator besides noting that, yes, we do exist. But why is existence more logical under a creator? Don't you then get wrapped up in the debate of where the creator came from? Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all. Well, most books make sense as stories. Not sure if many people actually go around saying the Bible doesn't "make sense" except perhaps in its claims over reality and perhaps its problems with internal consistency. But sure, the storyline is pretty straight-forward. Okay, Im not saying its logical becaz at this level of notions as you stated our logic is basically worth nothing. What Im saying is that it is more logical than no creator thats a diffrent debate. The thing is the word GOD trumps any other word you say nothing makes sense so I don't need to beilive in GOD I say nothing makes sense so I need to beilive in GOD how is your logic better? "Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all" agreed thats why I beilive in GOD. Don't you then get wrapped up in the debate of where the creator came from? Yes , and thats why the word creator is not accurrate because it is a human word a human notion.Whatever it is we do not understand at this point, I find that spiritual teachings make these matters more clear but it dosent make life easier. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts