The FUNdamental question really is, how many angels can dance a heavenly tarantella on the head of a pin?

-in 1978, ended a ban on giving black men priesthood authority.

Now that's the kind of "progressive thinking" we need more of in the White House.



= how many angels can dance a heavenly tarantella on the head of a pin?

'xactly 42.

Odd coincidence, huh?

"Odd coincidence, huh?"

It would be.
If it was a "coincidence."

It's just a matter of time for them to change their doctrine enough that they will become 'acceptable' to main stream Christian conservatives.

Though I do find it odd how much they have changed their religion.

And people think this shit is for real?
And that somehow this belief, or the beliefs' of any cult, make one a better human being?

These religions, these cults of man, are the gravest threat to the existance of humanity.


A failure to evolve.

And that somehow this belief, or the beliefs' of any cult, make one a better human being?

These religions, these cults of man, are the gravest threat to the existance of humanity.

----

Apparently according to you they do. Or at least, this belief in no God makes you a better human being.

These religions, these cults of man, are the gravest threat to the existance of humanity.

Posted by gitmboy at 2007-12-06 08:16 AM | Reply

Cults have been around as long as humanity has been around. No humanity -- no "cults of man." They aren't doing a very good job of putting themselves out of existence.

romneys religous beliefs mean next to nothing as far as my vote is concerned

saying he would double the size of gitmo and that he needs a lawyer to understand how to interpret the constitution is what lost my vote

Mitt Romney - wears special underwear

Rudy Giuliani - wears women's underwear

I think we've reached consensus.

Practicing any religion is just eating the menu and ignoring the meal.

Romney gonna explain converting dead people, including holocaust victims to Moronism? Or that Eden was actually in Missouri? California, maybe, or Hawaii for sure, but friggin' Missouri?

Actually the Garden of Eden is in Lucas Kansas NOT Missouri.

Larry Mohr

I'm not a Mormon ... in fact my home town is a village where Joseph Smith was arrested and tried for fraud before the founding of the LDS church...and I'm not a Romney supporter by any slightest stretch of the imagination.

However, during his term as governor of Mass., his faith was of no significance whatsoever to his style of governing (which was essentially do-nothing for the most part). Although this is a very highly Catholic area and there was some discomfort at first, it ended up being a non-issue to his actual performance.

Granted, it's highly unlikely that he could be reelected here, he's generally seen as not much more than a carpet bagger and a place holder who was trying to pad his resume for bigger and better. His bashing of his own state while governor was not well taken, either.

Frankly I don't care the religion of a president so long as he doesn't try to use his position to promote his spiritual point of view or if his views are what he bases his governing on. (A good example might be an evangelical Christian who strongly believes in an impending apocalypse and, therefore, incites wars to hurry things on).

******Apparently according to you they do. Or at least, this belief in no God makes you a better human being.

Posted by Pirate *****

........it makes him a less gullible human being....

I like the parts in the Book of Mormon that talk about Native Americans having things like wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chicken, horses, and donkeys, even though these things didn't exist in the new world until Columbus introduced them much much later.

it makes him a less gullible human being

I'm sure you have proof to back this up. Link please?

The "Surgeon General's Warning" should be posted outside every church, synagogue and mosque in the US.

Its also funny when the Book of Mormon talks about these beautiful white people who became dark (Indians) because of their wickedness.

Apparently according to you they do. Or at least, this belief in no God makes you a better human being.
Posted by Pirate at 2007-12-06 09:53 AM


YEAH!

Well, considering most evangelicals are the most hateful, sadistic and misogynistic Christian cult there is, then yes, in comparison, no belief in god is in fact better than a belief revolving around bigotry, intolerance and outright hate towards others (coincidentally just like their Muslim equivalent behave).

I have no doubt that if given the chance, these "Christian evangelicals" would love too publicly execute those they determine to be substandard ---- just as they have done in the past.

I think you beat them at that, Redneckville, with all the hate and spite in your posts.

All you need to know about the Mormons:

1. The modern sanctimonious self appointed "Saints" do not even vaguely resemble their leacherous con-artist founder.

2. Like Pat Robertson and scores of other religious con-artists, they are a business first and church second.

3. They pay no tax on their business activities.

4. They deserve to be left alone as much as any other law abiding citizen in this country.

As an atheist, I can't say I believe any religious belief is any more nuts than any other. Every religion believes in baseless teachings, so why is the mormon religion any worse than evangelical christianity?

"4. They deserve to be left alone as much as any other law abiding citizen in this country." -nutcase

AMEN

From the little bit I've read about Mormonism it is a pretty stupid religion that anyone with half a brain can plainly see is just a bunch of junk made up by Smith....but that isn't why I oppose Mitt Romney. I actually can't understand why anyone would support someone who has flip-flopped so much. How do you know what he really believes???

How did I know BIGJOHN would be here?

For MORMON quesions just go to www.lds.org


Posted by ewendels at 2007-12-06 10:56 AM

Because you know that I know the foundations of Mormonism?

Does the LDS site have anything about the Book of Abraham, and how it is a bogus translation of the Book of the Dead. I looked and it didn't have anything about that on the site. Also the genetic problems with Smith's 'revelations', I looked and it didn't have anything about that either.

So I have Mormon questions, but I didn't find the answers at the lds site.

I have questions about Mormon was the father of Moroni, though I did find out the Jesus visited America during the last half of the fourth century, that was interesting.

But what never seems to be answered by Mormons is how can you believe in what Joseph Smith has done when a book in your Bible is a proven fraud?

I like the parts in the Book of Mormon that talk about Native Americans having things like wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chicken, horses, and donkeys, even though these things didn't exist in the new world until Columbus introduced them much much later.

Posted by Jasper at 2007-12-06 11:24 AM

Even I didn't know about that one! Good to know, I'll check the LDS website to see if they have any info on that.

think you beat them at that, Redneckville, with all the hate and spite in your posts.
Posted by Pirate at 2007-12-06 11:59 AM |


YEAH!

Difference being I don't pretend to be something im not.

Perhaps there is a lesson in that for you!

Anyway, there is ample reason to despise and shun Romney other than the Cult he subscribes too!

But this sort of thing does illuminate the hypocrisy and duplicity (down right bold face lying) of so many "Christians" who say "There should be no Religious Litmus test for public office" yet when the rubber hits the road its all about A Religious Litmus test for public office for the candidates they will support (vs. their tactics of spreading rumor whispers, slander and downright falsehoods of those they don't like)!

*****'''it makes him a less gullible human being..skizziks'''

I'm sure you have proof to back this up. Link please?

Posted by Pirate******

.......which gods' existence would you like me to disprove ?......the ancient Greek gods, the ancient Roman gods, the Polynesian gods, the Norse gods, the Japanese gods, the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of animist African gods, .......

.......I ask you to be specific because throughout history, when men were faced with forces they were ignorant about, they gave the answer that it was the gods........

......so when it rained, it was the rain god, when it thundered it was the thunder god, when the food grew, it was the fertility god, so an endless parade of gods, probably tens of thousands, maybe more, were born of man's ignorant superstition......

.......that's why educated people consider current religions to be an extension of that ignorant superstion.........

........so please specify, the existence of which god would you like me to disprove ?.........

The "Surgeon General's Warning" should be posted outside every church, synagogue and mosque in the US.

Posted by geezer1 at 2007-12-06 11:41 AM | Reply

Yes. The second-hand incense smoke is hazardous to health and causes global warming.

........so please specify, the existence of which god would you like me to disprove ?.........

----

All of them. To claim there is no God, then every God must be disproved.

Skizziks, I would just go for 9 out of 10. If 9 out of 10 Gods are fake, it's a reasonable assumption to say all are.

If 4 out of 5 dentists say something we tend to listen. :)

"Skizziks, I would just go for 9 out of 10. If 9 out of 10 Gods are fake, it's a reasonable assumption to say all are."

I own one car. But if I told you I owned 10 (nine of which don't really exist) then my car would cease to exist?

Personally, I don't think god exists - at least not as religions describe it - but I concede that I could be wrong.

"To claim there is no God, then every God must be disproved." - Pirate



One could also make the reverse argument that to claim there is a god than the existence of such a god should be proven. I'd say it's easier to assume that something that can't be proven does not exist than it is to assume that something that can't be proven does exist. Assuming God exists without proof is not much different than assuming that Santa Claus exists when there is no proof. It doesn't mean that a God doesn't exist, but far too many people are convinced of the existance when there is no data that supports it.

One could also make the reverse argument that to claim there is a god than the existence of such a god should be proven.

----

Exactly. The existence/non-existence of any God cannot be proven. Thus, one cannot really say "There is/is not a God". The best one can say is "I believe there is/is not a God."

At least not proven in the absolute sense that we want it to be.

I have cousins who are died in the wool evangelicals. I recall their blasts of the Mormons throughout the years as 'Satanic'. Wonder what the heck they'll do if Willard is their nominee.

........well Pirate...I will start with an easy one, the Christian God......and then we will work our way up to the fabled Monkey Gods of India (now they have a compelling case)...........

........we will prove the non-existence of the Christian God through logic......now please cooperate..........

........do you believe that the God mentioned by the historical person we call Jesus exists.?

I agree 100%, Pirate. God is not testable, and is therefore there is no reason to squabble about religion. Believe what you want in terms of spirituality, because either way has just as much of a base. I choose to consider myself atheist for the above reasons ("I'd say it's easier to assume that something that can't be proven does not exist than it is to assume that something that can't be proven does exist.)", but that doesn't automatically make me better or worse than anyone else. Likewise, if someone believes in Mormonism, they aren't any crazier than someone who believes in evangelical christianity.

no one has seen a quark, yet we claim they exist.
i mean the greatest microscope can't even see an atom, yet we claim the existence of things that make up the things that make up atoms?

if proof of God did exist
what would it look like??
would some angel appear and be like, "hey guys, god is real"

would God spray paint the horizon with "yo i'm real"

if god is out of our realm of understanding, then how would God tell us he exists.

the world isn't flat
and the earth isn't the center of the universe
and our universe isn't the only universe that exists

there is no absolute answer to the question of God's existance. If he exists its out of our realm of understanding. If he doesn't exist we would never know.

so atheists can shut up just like fundamentalists should shut it. People aren't stupid for believing in God, and people aren't stupid for not believing... we just don't know.

and those that claim to know are idiots. thats why they call it a "belief" not a fact
atheism is a belief just like christianity is a belief.

Get off your high horses

"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum." -- Thomas Paine

I own one car. But if I told you I owned 10 (nine of which don't really exist) then my car would cease to exist?


Posted by Sully at 2007-12-06 01:12 PM

No, but if we proved that you lied 9 times, it would be a safe assumption that you lied the tenth time too. You would have lost credibility.

I'm still interested in Ewe's understanding of the fraud that is the Book of Abraham in the Mormon scripture however.

****People aren't stupid for believing in God, and people aren't stupid for not believing... we just don't know.*****

......wrong Klifferd....people are stupid for believing in the gods....

.....stupidity and ignorance are fertilizer for religion....

.....remember, when you take the side of religion, you take the side of Osama Bin Laden, he's only doing what his Koran told him to.........

....I'm waiting Pirate......

......the Socratic method of proof through logic takes two logical respondents.......

KLIFFERD is right, it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not there is a God. Even those who claim to have experienced "God" directly (like our illustrious president) have no way to know if it war really "God" or if they are just plain nuts (as is the case of our illustrious president).

Skizziks, science cannot prove the existance of a god one way or the other. While I will agree that it is sort of crazy to believe in a specific organized religion, as the chances of a specific version being correct are pretty much infinitely small, belief in the existance of God in the broad sense is not much different than believing in a lack of a God.

........do you believe that the God mentioned by the historical person we call Jesus exists.?

----

What I believe has no bearing on your claim to disprove all Gods.

.....no Danni...... Klifferd is not right....

.......people can make up fantasy creatures like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and God , and people who dont know better can believe in it......

.......but if you arm yourself with the proper tools we can show much of what is real, and what is an unsupportable fairytale......

.........I started the process with Pirate, but he seems to have gotten cold feet ( or his mommy told him to turn off the computer ).......

......well Pirate..it does.......

.....you seem afraid to engage in an open exchange that could lead us to the truth......

......not too secure in your belief ?.....having doubts ?..........

yess i am right

and skizziks is wrong

and my proof is just as good as his

.........I started the process with Pirate, but he seems to have gotten cold feet ( or his mommy told him to turn off the computer ).......

----

If you must know, I'm actually in the process of removing Trend ServerProtect in order to install Officescan but the removal is giving me grief so I'm manually removing it.

I'm a little distracted right now.

......well Klifferd.......
....which particular god are you talking about ?...
.....christian, shinto, or the monkey gods ?........
....or one of our African fertility gods ?.....

Big John,

Just do a google search "horses new world mormon" You should get some good info. I think the church's response is that because there were not any names for these animals the translation was as close as it could be. Horses for example were probably Tapirs. Another good search for you would be "archeology mormons". The archeological record does not support the book of mormon at all. Secular archeologist use the bible and other old religious documents all the time because they generally are acurate when it comes to people, places, and events. Think about it, if you were going to make up a religious document for future generations, you wouldn't invent say a super city called Metropolis that sits on top of a huge mountain in the middle of Kansas. You would use cities that were familiar to you, unless you were uneducated and were trying to write about events that happened in a part of the world that was considered frontier about people who you knew very little about. This is the problem that Mr. Smith gives to LDS.

how bout forgetting human concepts of God

and the actual ultimate conscienceness

being the collective of all conscienceness in this and other parallel universes

there is already research being done in a collective human conscienceness and some early proof of it exists.

if it exists
why can't a larger conscienceness of other consciencenesses from other universes exist

.....well Pirate..it does.......

----

Actually, it does not. You have no interactions if you're writing a paper.

I'm an atheist Klifferd, but I will agree with you. The only thing that really makes me believe that there is a bit more of a chance that there isn't a God is that saying there is a God would imply that the universe (or multiverse or whatever; totality of all space) was in some way finite (Logically, either god is infinite or the universe is infinite, not both).

Most people would think about it in terms of time, but you can think about it in terms of any dimension really, but we'll just use time as it's the easiest example to put into words. Either God created the universe at a certain time or the universe has always existed and is timeless. If the universe is infinite, than the only way there would be a god is if you were to consider the universe itself god, or if God is something beyond infinity, which doesn't make any logical sense.

I just think it's easier to assume the universe is infinite than to assume a God is infinite and created a universe. the atheist explanation is simpler, which makes it a bit easier to believe. But still, the possibility of a God is definitely still there.

......well .....perhaps you are not educated enough to understand the Socratic method of dialogue......

.......by not participating, however ......

...... you agree that if I make a logical statement, one that you cannot prove to be false, then that statement will be true......

Incredibleplum,

Nice thoughts. But your infinite God vs Universe topic may be bigger then that. Maybe God was created by another God. Maybe there is another God who created another universe, then in turn created another God. Maybe this cycle of God creating universe creating another God is infinate, therefore there is an infinite number of universes and Gods. Hmmmmm. Or could it be that the Universe did in fact create God who in turn gathered all of the mass in the universe, crushed it, then scattered it so that they created dark matter, stars, planets, and the elements.

*** why can't a larger conscienceness of other consciencenesses from other universes exist

Posted by klifferd ***

......why would it ?......

Skizziks,

Maybe conscienceness is like mass or energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

skizziks why wouldn't it?

which i think is the better question.

socratic method doesnt' work in circular debates.

you just end up where i said earlier

with no right answer

"Maybe God was created by another God. Maybe there is another God who created another universe, then in turn created another God. Maybe this cycle of God creating universe creating another God is infinate, therefore there is an infinite number of universes and Gods."

Excellent argument, Jasper. You're absolutely correct. It could be possible. As stated above, I don't believe that atheism is much better than a broad belief in a God.

.... you agree that if I make a logical statement, one that you cannot prove to be false, then that statement will be true....

----

I really don't care about the Socratic method of dialogue.

My challenge to you is to prove your claim that there is no God. Your proof should not depend on any of my answers or responses.

*****Maybe conscienceness is like mass or energy in that it cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

Posted by Jasper ****

......you are indulging in idle speculation, maybe tooth fairies prefer molars to incisors, you are rambling way out there........and if you took the time to parse what you are proposing, you would understand that there is little foundation to it......

skizziks tahts the point
there is no right answer
as it is speculation to believe or not to believe in a higher being/creator
what ever you want to call it

Even so, though, Jasper, you are still assuming that the Universe is finite (time-wise), and I still believe that it's simpler to believe that the universe always existed than to believe that even a series of gods created it. Those series of Gods collectively would have to be infinite (time-wise) as opposed to the universe which was created at a finite time.

Conscience energy is a good definition of "spirit", otherwise described as "the animating force.

- I still believe that it's simpler to believe that the universe always existed

It is simpler to believe, but also defies the basic mathematics of the BBT.

"Or could it be that the Universe did in fact create God who in turn gathered all of the mass in the universe, crushed it, then scattered it so that they created dark matter, stars, planets, and the elements." -Jasper

In this case, God is not the creator of the universe, so perhaps that would be a slightly different definition of what God is from the one I was thinking of, which is still valid seeing as how the ancient Gods tended to be born out of chaos.

"Conscious" energy.

Damn speilchicker!

"You cannot petition the Lord with prayer."

You gotta be pretty old to remember it.

**** Your proof should not depend on any of my answers or responses. Pirate ****

.....if you want flat logic then we will have it....

.....the concept of god, is an all powerful being....
.....the concept of god, is that of an all powerful being that can create anything (as he is reputed to have created the earth )

.....now......

......can god create a rock so big that he cannot lift it ?.......

.....if he can create such a rock, then he is not all powerful because a rock exists that he cannot lift.......
......if he can lift the rock, then he is not all powerful because he cannot create a rock big enough......

.......therefore, an all-powerful god cannot exist...logically proven........

and Pirate since
**** Your proof should not depend on any of my answers or responses. Pirate*****
and I will take you at your self-limiting word....

When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there ...

Corky, when I mentioned the Universe I was talking about the collective space of everything (perhaps call it the multiverse). Even if our own universe started out as in a tiny space, it's hard to imagine that there was absolutely no space outside of the pre-big bang universe.

I'm not saying there necessarily was space outside of the universe, as nobody has proof of that.

A person there who put forth the proposition ...

that you could PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!!!

My total religious belief system:

I don't know and neither to you.

er....do you.

Zat....age???

When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there
Who put forth the proposition, that you can petition the lord with prayer
Petition the lord with prayer, petition the lord with prayer
You cannot petition the lord with prayer!
Can you give me sanctuary, I must find a place to hide, a place for me to hide
Can you find me soft asylum, I cant make it anymore, the man is at the door
Peppermint, miniskirts, chocolate candy, champion sax and a girl named sandy
Theres only four ways to get unraveled, one is to sleep and the other is travel, da da
One is a bandit up in the hills, one is to love your neighbor till
His wife gets home
Catacombs, nursery bones, winter women, growing stones
Carrying babies, to the river
Streets and shoes, avenues, leather riders
Selling news, the monk bought lunch
Ha ha, he bought a little, yes, he did, woo!
This is the best part of the trip, this is the trip, the best part
I really like, whatd he say? , yeah!, yeah, right!
Pretty good, huh, huh!, yeah, Im proud to be a part of this number
Successful hills are here to stay, everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play, welcome to the soft parade
All our lives we sweat and save, building for a shallow grave
Must be something else we say, somehow to defend this place
Everything must be this way, everything must be this way, yeah
The soft parade has now begun, listen to the engines hum
People out to have some fun, a cobra on my left
Leopard on my right, yeah
The deer woman in a silk dress, girls with beads around their necks
Kiss the hunter of the green vest, who has wrestled before
With lions in the night
Out of sight!, the lights are getting brighter
The radio is moaning, calling to the dogs
There are still a few animals, left out in the yard
But its getting harder, to describe sailors, to the underfed
Tropic corridor, tropic treasure
What got us this far, to this mild equator?
We need someone or something new
Something else to get us through, yeah, cmon
Callin on the dogs, callin on the dogs
Oh, its gettin harder, callin on the dogs
Callin in the dogs, callin all the dogs, callin on the gods
You gotta meet me, too late, baby
Slay a few animals, at the crossroads, too late
All in the yard, but its gettin harder, by the crossroads
You gotta meet me, oh, were goin, were goin great
At the edge of town, tropic corridor, tropic treasure
Havin a good time, got to come along, what got us this far
To this mild equator? , outskirts of the city, you and i
We need someone new, somethin new, somethin else to get us through
Better bring your gun, better bring your gun
Tropic corridor, tropic treasure, were gonna ride and have some fun
When all else fails, we can whip the horses eyes
And make them sleep, and cry

-Jim Morrison

skizziks tahts the point
there is no right answer

Kliff
.....you are making the mistake of concluding that all idle speculation is equally valid......some things can be proven, and some can be disproven.....when talking about tooth fairies, goblins, fertility gods, monkey gods and other invisible conjecture, its a good bet to stay on the side of demonstrable sanity........

The BBT postulates a "singularity" existing outside space and time prior to the the BB.

"You cannot petition the Lord with prayer."

Jim Morrison?

That's your proof? That's funny.

danni

i agree

speaking of socrates

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

Zat....age???

Posted by danni



I'll be 58 tomorrow, the day that will live in infamy.

And he, he walked on down the hall...
And he came to a door...
Father?
Yes son?
I want to kill you...
Mother...
I want to..................

In honesty, Corky, though I know the people who come up with these physics theories are far more intelligent than I am, I doubt we have even scratched the surface on our origins. The big bang is possibly correct in some ways, but we know nothing about it and have probably gotten a lot of it wrong.

I'm just not sure how much credibility we should give to the big bang theory as we presently know it, or to the period before the big bang.

".....the concept of god, is an all powerful being...."
--SKIZZIKS

Not necessarily.

Gods in just about every religion are limited in some way.

But yes, the god that can "do anything" can be logically disproven in the way you have shown.

****That's your proof? That's funny.
Posted by Pirate****

......after all, it was you who said....

*** Your proof should not depend on any of my answers or responses.***......so you have given up the right of a retort......it does not depend on your response......and if it did ?.......

......would you have a logical response?? no of course not......because this statement is irrefutable proof of the non-existance of god......

I'm an atheist Klifferd, but I will agree with you. The only thing that really makes me believe that there is a bit more of a chance that there isn't a God is that saying there is a God would imply that the universe (or multiverse or whatever; totality of all space) was in some way finite (Logically, either god is infinite or the universe is infinite, not both).

Incredible Plum

An interesting question, but finite and infinite are ways of describing an attribute of something. When you say the universe if infinite what attribute of the universe are you saying is infinite? One would assume you mean its physical shape. When you say God is infinite what attribute of God are you saying is infinite? His power, length of existence, his knowledge? Some combination. If so why is logical that the two are mutually exclusive?


The question of time you raise is also a fascinating one, and with all due respect, I would suggest that your notion of time needs to be tweaked.

It is possible for God, who exists out of time to create something that is infinite within time. Consider the analogy, a person draws a perfect circle on piece of paper. In this instance the person represents God, outside of the plain of existence that is on the sheet of paper. His drawing of the circle is his act of creation. The circle is the universe. If you travelled through this universe you would find that it is infinite.

In addition it is important to recognize that the notion of infinite/infinity is something that is truly beyond the full comprehension of human beings. Even more to the point, can you prove that infinity exists? It seems to me that the infinite is an idea more than a reality. It is an abstraction that the rational mind draws upon when it logically leads to a description of the physical world that is beyond our ability to truly understand or comprehend. Moreover, science can only examine things that are quantifiable and the infinite by its very definition cannot be accurately quantified. It is a marker, therefore of our absence of knowledge of what is beyond what our senses can sense and even our rational mind can comprehend.

As such it represents the same sort of thing that atheists claim God represents--a linguistic tag that represents what is unknown to us. Your rejection of the existence of God based on an appeal to the infinite becomes almost tautological.

None of this proves the existence of God, based on scientific or empirical methods because that can't be done. Again, such methods can only claim existence for things that are measurable. God, in any of his possible attributes, by definition is immeasurable--infinite as you say.

Just my two cents.

Cheers

Maybe God was created by another God. Maybe there is another God who created another universe, then in turn created another God. Maybe this cycle of God creating universe creating another God is infinate, therefore there is an infinite number of universes and Gods."

Posted by Incredibleplum at 2007-12-06 02:58 PM | Reply

That's a pretty accurate summation of Mormon theology. Was that on purpose or just coincidental (on this thread)?

......would you have a logical response?? no of course not......because this statement is irrefutable proof of the non-existance of god......

----

Actually, the problem is that you're assuming God is bound by logic. If God is all powerful, then God can do the illogical.

****Actually, the problem is that you're assuming God is bound by logic. If God is all powerful, then God can do the illogical. Pirate*****

......so then what you are saying is that logically, I am correct........

......I have therefore proven, logically, and you have agreed logically, that an all powerful god can not exist.........

........thank you....and good night.........

if he can create such a rock, then he is not all powerful because a rock exists that he cannot lift.......
......if he can lift the rock, then he is not all powerful because he cannot create a rock big enough......

.......therefore, an all-powerful god cannot exist...logically proven........


Skizziks,

If given the premise that God is truly all powerful then can he be bound or limited even by the rules of logic?


By asking the question, you negate your initial premise. Your logic itself is faulty. The argument falls apart.


Cheers

......so then what you are saying is that logically, I am correct........

No, your logic is not correct. In a syllogistic argument you can't negate your own premise then claim that your conclusion is correct.

Cheers

Grendel, you make good points. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to give a proper response as philosophy on such topics is often very fun.

Anton, I was quoting somebody else on the thread. I'm an atheist.

No, because you have to assume that all powerful means defying logic.

If you are defining "all powerful" as within the bounds of logic, then you limiting "all powerful". "All powerful" with limits is not "all powerful".

To boil the question down...

Can a God that defies logic exist in logic?

Grendel
Pirate asked for proof that god does not exist.
We do not present or refute proof in the plane of illogic.....that would mean that all our conversations would be meaningless.
My question is not a double negative, therefore it does not negate itself......what it does, is that it points out that the concept of an all powerful being is self-contradictory......a flawed human creation.......

.....man created the christian god......as he did all the other ones......but not very well......full of self-contradictions......

......I have presented my proof within the logical context, to say that "yes you proved it logically, but now prove it illogically" is a nonsensical statement........

........there are no gods.........no tooth fairies.......and no goblins......only the hobgoblins of small minds........

Shizziks,

Of course I'm speculating. I am a big fan of Fantasy Sci Fi. But like I always say in this board, my speculation is as valid as speculating in Dark Matter. Many Scientist believe that 70 to 90 percent of the universe is made up of Dark Matter. They can't see it, record it, or prove it. The only reason they think it exist is because it is the only way that their theories about the universe can be true. That's just bad science. Let's see, I have this theory, but there are facts out there that would make my theory not true unless there was some kind of invisable force that I can't see. This invisable force is so powerful and so big that it is 70 to 90 percent of the universe. Yeah thats the ticket!

Skizziks,

Logically everything must have a start, but yet your universe is not bound by any of the four dimensions.

Actually, the problem is that you're assuming God is bound by logic. If God is all powerful, then God can do the illogical.

Posted by Pirate at 2007-12-06 03:43 PM

Could Jesus make a pizza so hot that even Jesus couldn't eat it? lol ;)

Back on track, if Joseph Smith used the same seer stone for the now proven wrong Book of Abraham for the Book of Mormon, does this too make the Book of Mormon wrong?

"Many Scientist believe that 70 to 90 percent of the universe is made up of Dark Matter. They can't see it, record it, or prove it. The only reason they think it exist is because it is the only way that their theories about the universe can be true. That's just bad science." -Jasper


I've been making that point for a long time. I'm glad someone agrees with me.

If anyone doubts that all religions are hooey, then may I step to the side and allow Mr. L. Ron Hobbard to speak? And thus it was since time began.

Jomama,

That wuz some funny shiznit. L. Ron Hubbard...hahahahahahahah.

My question is not a double negative, therefore it does not negate itself......what it does, is that it points out that the concept of an all powerful being is self-contradictory......a flawed human creation.......
......I have presented my proof within the logical context, to say that "yes you proved it logically, but now prove it illogically" is a nonsensical statement........


I am not sure what you set out to prove of disprove with Pirate, but you have not presented proof or an argument for anything within a logical context if you refer to the God/Rock argument of yours posted at 3:09. In a syllogism the conclusion cannot be at odds with the initial premise or given. That is not how logic works.

This is your premise for the argument:

the concept of god, is an all powerful being....
.....the concept of god, is that of an all powerful being that can create anything (as he is reputed to have created the earth )

This is your conclusion for the same argument.

.......therefore, an all-powerful god cannot exist

This "argument" of yours is not a logical one. How can the conclusion negate the premise? This argument is, therefore, not a logical one.

As such it can't say anything of worth in regard to the question of whether there is or isn't a God.

.....man created the christian god......as he did all the other ones......but not very well......full of self-contradictions......

You are entitle to your opinions.

........there are no gods.........no tooth fairies.......and no goblins......only the hobgoblins of small minds........

I agree. There is only one God, and given his nature or even just the nature of the universe all human minds are small and limited.

When dealing with the nature of existence and the universe it is foolish arrogance to be so confident in one's own knowledge that one can consider someone else to be small minded.

To the gods all ants are ants, even if the ants themselves consider some among their number to be philosophers.


Cheers

the concept of god, is an all powerful being

----

The main question and the crux of the rock/God question is...

Does "all powerful" include the illogical?

I think you could successfully argue that "all powerful" does include the illogical. It would be easy to conclude that one whom could not do the illogical is not all powerful. An action that cannot be done would be a limitation; hence, not all powerful.

Logically speaking, of course. :o)

the rock/God question

Spud luffed Homer Simpson's take on that question:

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?"

Be Well.

Seems to me the burden of proof is upon those that are making the outrageous claims of Angels Devils and Gods and that these "sacred" texts were given to man by a being that is so powerful that it is outside of space and time.

It is easy to see that there are forces in the known Universe that are more powerful than man. It is easy to speculate that there are even other Universes were there may even be more powerful forces.

But, is there an Intelligent Designer?

Is there a being that sits (floats?) up there not restrained by the physical laws of the Universe that set this whole thing in motion?

If you are making that claim then it is up to YOU to prove it. Do not foist your belief system upon my or blackmail me into accepting it. Won't work.

The day that a religion and reason get married is the day I become a Priest for that religion (I just made that up but it could happen!).

Why can't a religious belief system coincide with the known Universe? Why do these Gods require that we suspend our reason and understanding of the Universe to "believe"?

The fact, is there is not one shred of evidence that there is anyone out there coming to our rescue (the messiah complex). We are alone and if we are to save ourselves it is up to us.

Those that say it is not an important issue or there should be NO religious test are obviously wrong. Take a look at the results of this Administrations revelations from God and by the amount attention issues of religion get and how much they affect our world. It is important that even if our leaders are the member of a faith, no matter what that faith is, they have not sacrificed their ability to make sound judgments or their ability to use reason and logic in making their day to day decisions. And if any of these candidates so much as hint that they are receiving messages from some supernatural source if behooves us to dig a little deeper do a sanity check before we give them the keys to the castle.

The day that a religion and reason get married is the day I become a Priest for that religion (I just made that up but it could happen!).

Spud,

I hope you like the color black and white collars.

Do not equate the belief that because something is reasonable/logical that it is automatically true.

Logic is a system by which we examine or analyze. Logical statements can be false.

Consider:

All whales can sing opera.
Shamu is a whale.
Shamu can sing opera.

This is logical and shows the working of a rationale mind, but it is not true. The reason why it is not true is because you and I do not accept the initial premise about whales singing opera.

The study of God, theology, like all academic disciplines has its foundations in reason and rationale analysis. Some of the greatest logicians of the time have been theologians. The issue for you and for many is not that faith and reason are separate, but that you do not accept the same premises that religious people do.

Religious people accept the premise that God exists. Agnostics and atheists don't. All the real arguments among the three stem from whether you should accept the premise or not. Depending on what you do accept, both science and religion require other premises to continue the building of knowledge.

If anything religion and reason are actually as inseparable and as wedded as reason and science. That some use faulty logic and reason is common to both--junk science (Cold fusion?) and junk religion (Fred Phelps).

The irony of course is that all known truths--knowledge of any kind--whether it is science, philosophical, theological-- must be built on a foundation of assumptions.

Cheers

The irony of course is that all known truths--knowledge of any kind--whether it is science, philosophical, theological-- must be built on a foundation of assumptions.

Nice crap here to pander the religious fundamental idea of it being logical.

Sorry but these all "start" with an assumption but science finishes with fact and therefore the assumption is not a foundation but a entry point.

Religion ends still as a foundation of assumption just as it began, nothing changed from the origin but alot of double talking words to stimulate the mind.

When the mind is enlightened, the spirit is freed, and the body is no longer required.

Isn't mother nature wonderful!

A Lesson from the March Stepper...

All whales can sing opera.
Shamu is a whale.
Shamu can sing opera

Here's one of Spud's faves.

Socrates was a wise man.
Everybody should value wisdom.
Socrates drank Hemlock.
Ergo Everybody should drink Hemlock if they want to be considered wise.

The first three premises are actually true and yet the conclusion based on those premises is obviously false because of the reality that Hemlock and Wisdom have no corelation wotsoever.

A faulty causation is implied.

Religious people accept the premise that God exists. Agnostics and atheists don't. All the real arguments among the three stem from whether you should accept the premise or not. Depending on what you do accept, both science and religion require other premises to continue the building of knowledge.

Spud the athiest/ recovering Catholic does believe in sommat.

Spud believes in the greater Good.
The Universal Good.
Spud believes that evolution is real and that it's going somewhere.
Spud believes that Sentience is, in a sense, it's own reward.
That the human "switch" if you has a default setting of "good" in most cases.
Spud also believes in the "bad seed"
Spud rejects evil as being unhealthy for the body politic and the family of Man.

Grendel believes in God.
Spud believes in Good.

In truth we are only one character apart.

The letter "o" which resembles zero.

Therefore it could be sed that our differences amount to almost nothing.

Spud rejects evil.
Grendel rejects the Devil.

Another single character apart again.

This time a "d".

"do" you understand wot Spud is trying to say here?

When the human species first ate the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil we became sentient.

Sentience is a two edged sword. A double hook.

The more knowledge we have, the more empathy we have, the more likely we are to chose good but good isn't the only choice or free will would be meaningless.

Some on this earth reject empathy and the common, greater good for the evil of self love and money lust.

This includes Believers, Athiests and Agnostics.

Would you agree?

Be Well.

All this debate over the existence of god is silly. Without something to observe, the concept has to come from imagination. If we're going to play that game, why one god? Why not tens, hundreds, thousands, or even billions of gods? There is no plan. Some are good; some are bad; some are always fighting; some co-exist harmoniously. It explains human society much better.

Even after all that has been learned of the world we live in, ignorance and superstition still thrive. What better proof can there be that man evolved from monkeys?

Sorry but these all "start" with an assumption but science finishes with fact and therefore the assumption is not a foundation but a entry point.

Arrived at facts are not somehow then set free from the logical apparatus once arrived at. A fact can only be a fact because it continually relies on the assumption.

Actually, it is arguable that in order for something to be a "fact", one must ignore the existence of the foundational assumptions and make the leap to a pronoucement of something as truth. Of course not recognizing something or ignoring it is not tantamount for that something not to exist.

Religion ends still as a foundation of assumption just as it began, nothing changed from the origin but alot of double talking words to stimulate the mind.

Well, that proves it then. That you want and need the above to be true doesn't make it so. (Isn't that a favorite line of atheists?!)

Isn't rationality wonderful!

Cheers

A fact doesn't rely on an assumption, a fact relies on observable repeatable proofs.

As Spud wisely says "Therefore it could be sed that our differences amount to almost nothing."

Reminds me of something...oh yes, here it is....

At which end should the faithful break their eggs: at the big end or at the little end?


And yet wars continue to be fought over such things as the nature of God.

and so it goes...

A fact doesn't rely on an assumption, a fact relies on observable repeatable proofs.

The main assumption you don't recognize is found in your faith in your idea of repeatablity.

Scientific expirimentation is predicated on inductive (specific to the general) reasoning not deductive (general to the specific).

Deductive reason leads to proofs. Inductive reasoning never arrives at a proof. Instead it ammasses so much evidence that we begin to erase doubt and accept a thesis as true. Doubt, however, can never be completely erased.

Understandably, we accept repeatability of an action as strong evidence in support of making a truth claim.

Will the sun rise tomorrow morning? How do you know? Is it possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow? In fact do you believe there will come a point in time that the sun will not rise? I am betting that you are willing to say yes, despite the fact that in 4 billion years alone the sun has risen @ 1,460,000,000,000 times. (If my math is correct).

Cheers

Doubt, however, can never be completely erased.

One day the stone we drop may well fall up instead of down.

The black swan was an unknown until it was known and then the theory changed to incorporate the new data.

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge, be they Scientist or Priest or just some guy on a box in Hyde Park, is either crazy, ignorant, arrogant beyond words or trying to sell you something you prolly don't need.

So sez Spud.

Spud luffs this place.

Off to read now. Maybe back later.

Be Well.

/stage left.

Just a little thing concerning the title... Doesn't theology divide all religions from each other at one point or another? Of course it divides Mormons and Evangelicals - just as it divides Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. Just an observation...

The main assumption you don't recognize is found in your faith in your idea of repeatablity.

Sorry but science comes from multi-directions even changes from false assumptions from the individual who made the false assumption.

Religion still sits in its original assumption and has not changed and does not allow for other assumption to interfere with the original assumption.

One is closed, the other is open but the confusion results when the closed postulates that it is really open.

Faith is far more than an assumption but like reading your explaination toward this knowing feeling.

The universe is so vast, yet we are so small, the only thing we truely can control is whether we are good, or evil.

Grendel:
Scientific expirimentation is predicated on inductive (specific to the general) reasoning not deductive (general to the specific).

Deductive reason leads to proofs. Inductive reasoning never arrives at a proof. Instead it ammasses so much evidence that we begin to erase doubt and accept a thesis as true. Doubt, however, can never be completely erased.

Too many people don't understand this concept, Grendel. They use the word "science" as if it is a set of hard facts. Science is not that. It is exactly what you described.

moneywar:
Sorry but science comes from multi-directions even changes from false assumptions from the individual who made the false assumption.

There's nothing sorry about it. By definition, science must bend. That's the beauty of science vs faith. Science can change as data is reported. We may one day find that black swan. Faith however is rigid, staid, and unmovable no matter how illogically unsound its tenets.

Which makes more sense?

One is closed, the other is open but the confusion results when the closed postulates that it is really open.

Moneywar,

No need to be sorry.

When science will accept idealist (Platonist) assumptions or post-modernist assumptions as legitimate refutations of the assumptions foundational to empiricism then I will agree with your assessment of science being a completely open and a self revising system. (I am not going to hold my breath waiting.)

By the way, I think you are confusing science with philosophy.

Philosophy is what is used to describe and understand what science is and how it works. Science is not what is used to understand and know what philosophy is. Philosophy is at the top of the academic food chain--not science. If you don't believe me ask a scientist with a Ph.D.-- you know a doctor of philosophy.



Here is a classic.

Scientist One: Something happened!
Scientist Two: How do you know?
Scientist One: I was able to measure it.

Scientist Two: How were you able to measure it?
Scientist One: Because it happened!


This is the foundation that science rests on--a tautology.

Cheers

There's nothing sorry about it. By definition, science must bend. That's the beauty of science vs faith. Science can change as data is reported. We may one day find that black swan. Faith however is rigid, staid, and unmovable no matter how illogically unsound its tenets.

Which makes more sense?

Yes, religious systems essentially are deductive or top down. "Given this as truth, we can conclude this. . ." The given cannot be changeable. It is a constant that makes all other arguments possible in that particular system.


Scientific systems are essentially inductive, that is from the bottom up. "With this evidence what conclude as true?"

The first is capable of coming up with definitive truths provided that you accept the thesis. The second can approach truth to some kind of mathematical probability--but never getting to a definitive proof or conclusion. The conclusions (generalizatons) can change but the types of things that are accepted as evidence (the particulars) stay the same.

The basis of this is found in the conflicting systems of Plato and Aristotle. Religion tends to the Platonic. Science tends to the Aristotelian.

Both Aristotelian and Platonic thought, however, are under the rubric of philosophy.

Must finally go. Getting sleepy.

Cheers and good night once more.

Grendel,

Yes, both are philosophical, one fact finding in the physical plane and the other in the spiritual plane.

I happen to believe in both, they strengthen each other not divide each other.

Goatman,

Nice post, explained it better than I.


I find it funny how people can trounce on the people who quest to find enlightenment on the spiritual plane and people on that quest can trounce on people finding enlightenment on the physical plane.

The mind, body, and spirit are internally linked, as socrates teaches and many other enlightened philosophers but the bottom line is achieving enlightenment and what does it matter how one gets there.

This is the foundation that science rests on--a tautology.

Interesting, I do not disagree but I wonder why such an example of unintentional and unnecessary use of two words have been given with just one opposing example.

Was it purposely omitted?

Sadly, because I respect many of your political views. The posts about why you don't think there is a God is what reaffirms my faith in God.

Once you get the Holy Ghost in you, it is easy to tell why there is a God. I understand that which you can only debate about.

It's like Einstein watching students try to figure out E=MC2.

Try taking Jesus at his word, everything of God falls in place, and everything else falls apart.

That of this earth is different from that of what is of God...you can't use any form of logic to explain it, yet it is a deep understanding that goes beyond explanation. But God doesn't tell anyone to destroy...(i.e. the prez), it would be suicidal to God.

But, Satan exists as well. (but he's not the dude with horns in cartoons)

Sorry if it offends, and I really do agree with most of you politically.

With that being said, I am still curious about the book of Mormon. The only part of the bible that is mentioned to be immutable is the book of Revelations. (i.e. bad things will happen to anyone that tries to add or subtract from it). The bible does say there will be many false prophets and false teachings...but it doesn't mention which.

Often times I can figure out where other doctrines contradict the bible, but for some reason, I have a different inclination about the book of Mormon. If Jesus appeared as an apparition to Paul in the 2nd century to Paul in the middle east, I'm not 100% sure it couldn't have happened elsewhere. But, that's a far cry from saying that it did happen.

I wish the non-believers out there would put as much curiosity in proving their non-belief as they would giving it some thought to the affirmative. That is why it is called faith.

Of course, if you don't have that innate curiosity about it, feel free to rip me a new one.

Doesn't theology divide all religions from each other at one point or another?

It has historically.
It does now to a lesser extent.
It doesn't have to.

Religions can evolve towards a more ecumenical and inclusive form of spirituality.

Some have. The United Church fer example.

Some resist mightily. The RCs and Islamisists to name but two.

Good question.

Be Well.

PS: Truly gone now!

/stage left.

Believe it or not, Spud. I couldn't agree with you more.

As a "hardcore Christian", the only thing that I'm really hardcore about is that the example of Jesus is real.

When it comes down to it, Jesus's point was that we are to love one another.

I can't imagine a less divisive rule.

It's getting to that point that is such a struggle..

That is why I keep saying Jesus is the answer.

Bocaink, interesting observations. Let me just say that your innate curiosity serves you well. Many people are very quick to criticize without wanting or trying to understand.

I think that's the crux of the matter with people's problems with Romney specifically and Mormons in general. They'd rather get the two minute google answer than actually think through why certain beliefs are the way they are. Keep being curious, check things out, and keep tryin to find things out for yourself. I've found that's the best way to get answers for yourself.

I wouldn't vote for Romney for one reason. I think he would be the poster boy for big money. Don't get me wrong. I believe in capitalism to a large extent...but the rules have been tilted so far toward the powerful, that is has become oppressive to the country as a whole, (i.e. the middle and lower class). I can't imagine Romney taking power away from the rich.

I'm by far not a Marxist, but the control of wealth is a pendulum (not a zero-sum game), and it needs to swing toward the middle more. I can't imagine that changing with him in power.

This country needs a strong middle class the most as well as a caring attitude toward the lower class. At the same time, the upper class needs to be able to prosper to generate revenue without cannibalizing the rest.

This is best done when the pendulum is close to the middle.

This is the foundation that science rests on--a tautology.

Cheers

Posted by Grendel



How's your strawman tonight?

Still using transistors diss transistors?

imbecile

Obama's father was a fucking Muslim and he went to a Muslim school and everyone is up in arms over Romneys Mormonism??

Give me a break!

When is Barack going to answer questions about his death-cult background.

I'm an atheist Klifferd, but I will agree with you.


Posted by Incredibleplum at 2007-12-06 02:41 PM






Excellent argument, Jasper. You're absolutely correct. It could be possible. As stated above, I don't believe that atheism is much better than a broad belief in a God.

Posted by Incredibleplum at 2007-12-06 02:58 PM |



With those two statements I think AGNOSTIC is the word more accurately descriptive of you.

mark, i'm a muslim

i play in a rock band

and i party my ass off

didn't know i was part of some death cult...

thanks for making it clear to me

1 billion strong
thats a serious death cult... suprised your not dead yet... we're so scary

you've made me a believer

i'm a death cultist

moron

A fact doesn't rely on an assumption, a fact relies on observable repeatable proofs.

The main assumption you don't recognize is found in your faith in your idea of repeatablity.

Scientific expirimentation is predicated on inductive (specific to the general) reasoning not deductive (general to the specific).

Deductive reason leads to proofs. Inductive reasoning never arrives at a proof. Instead it ammasses so much evidence that we begin to erase doubt and accept a thesis as true. Doubt, however, can never be completely erased.
Posted by Grendel at 2007-12-06 10:29 PM

I would disagree with you, and so do many others:

Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.

Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. Many incorrectly teach that deductive reasoning goes from general information to specific information and that inductive reasoning travels in the opposite direction. This is not accurate. Deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning examines specific information, perhaps many pieces of specific information, to derive a general principle. By thinking about phenomena such as how apples fall and how the planets move, Isaac Newton induced his theory of gravity. In the 19th century, Adams and LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus (specific data).

BigJohn,

Nice quote. If you read through my posts, you will see that it does not contradict anything that I said. In fact it reinforces it.

Cheers

I think it does contradict what you said Grendel:

Scientific expirimentation is predicated on inductive (specific to the general) reasoning not deductive (general to the specific).

Posted by Grendel at 2007-12-06 10:29 PM

and then I post this:

Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. Many incorrectly teach that deductive reasoning goes from general information to specific information and that inductive reasoning travels in the opposite direction. This is not accurate.

"Science" uses both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Math and Physics and intertwined closely, how do you use induction in Math? There aren't 'experiments' in math per say.

"Science" uses both inductive and deductive reasoning.

It is true that science using inductive reason accepts conclusion which it turn it may use in deductive arguments.

For example scientists can use the idea that the sun is a huge fusion furnace as a major premise or given. It in turn with other premises can be used to make some kind of deductive conclusion. But in order even to arrive at that nitial premise, scientists had to use inductive reasoning, gather data to support the general conclusion.

The scientific method the core of scientific inquiry uses inductive reasoning. That's not a bad thing. It just is.

Your question on math is an important one. One of the reasons that science turns to math to describe its observations because it sees mathematical systems as objectively true and verifiable. Reliance on math is helpful to eliminate doubt. Doubt is then recast in mathematical terms--probability. The more times we do an experiment. The more data we accrue the closer to we get to certainty. Achieving certainty, however, is like achieving the speed of light. It is theoretically impossible.

Math from what little I understand is based on deductive reasoning. Remember geometric proofs! I think I was the only one in my class who enjoyed them. That was deductive reasoning. Given that parallel lines never converge, we can using various other principles or givens arrive at conclusions.

I remember having a kind of epiphany in high school geometry in which I wondered why do I have to accept the given? Or even should I? A trip to my library introduced me to non-Euclidean geometries in which there are other sets of givens--parallel lines always merge. I believe it is these other kinds of geometries that cosmologists sometimes refer to in order to describe the nature of the universe.

Here is a question. Does math exist independent of human beings?

If so how does it exist, where does it exist and where did it come from?

If not then are we merely imposing a human constructed ordering system on a purely chaotic universe?

Cheers

By the way Zat, thanks for post. I believe being called an imbecile amounts to high praise in your book.

At least I know you've read my posts--that you actually care.

God is an invention of the mind of man. How could it be otherwise?

I don't know, why couldn't it be otherwise?

When Romney says things like "Jesus Christ was the savior of the world" that is like a slap in the face to all other religions of the world isn't it?

No, that would be true if you believe that a disagreement is the same as an insult.

The fact that a Muslim publicly affirms his or her belief, which I disagree with it, does not insult me at all. What would I expect him to publicly affirm? Nor will I feel antipathy toward him, even though I think he is wrong. My belief that I am right in something doesn't require that you acknowledge yourself to be wrong. Why should it?

Moreoever, my respect for people doesn't hinge on whether they agree with me, and I don't expect people to agree with me, but I expect respect from them.

Cheers

When it comes down to it, Jesus's point was that we are to love one another.

~BocaInk

Strewth!

That is why I keep saying Jesus is the answer.

If you interpret Jesus's life to be all about the embodiment of Love through Acts then you are correct, sirrah!

Give that man a ceegar or you can take one of the large stuffed animals from the top shelf!

Spud's sed it before and Spud is say it again.

Love is always the answer no matter wot the question is.

(*Note Bene- This may not actually work out well if you try answering all the questions on yer next Trig exam "Love" in fact you'll prolly get an F)

actually have you heard of sufism

its all about spirituality

the majority of muslims aren't islamists

just like most americans aren't evangelical jesus freaks

~Klifferd

Deth is athiest/ recovering Catholic Spud but yes, Spud has heard of the Sufis.

Spud pointed out, rather recently in fact, that in Spud's considered opinion "Sufis kick ass".

Although, admittedly, the "Whirling Dervish" thing is kinda funny to Spud. Spinning around in endless circles does not lead to spiritual visions it just makes ya dizzy and maybe a li'l nauseous.

The Swedenbougists had some interesting idears too, except fer, like a lot of cult like religions, the leader used his charisma and following to promote immoral sexual behaviours and call it spirituality. See Children of God, early Mormons, Modern Mormom sects, Jim Jones, the Whacko from Waco, Charles Manson etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Also just as an aside there are, according to figures wot Spud has seen over 50 million Americans who self identify as Evangelicals.

Spud calls the worst of that lot "evDEVILicals" doncha know.

Be Welcome to the DR, Klifferd the Sufi.

Be Well.

PS: To Grendel:

I remember having a kind of epiphany in high school geometry

So did Milton Friedman, oddly enuff. That guy was the anti-thesis of spiritual in fact it can be sed that that man is responsible for more of the world ills than Hitler. Long story. Glad yer back!

Here is a question. Does math exist independent of human beings?

If so how does it exist, where does it exist and where did it come from?

If not then are we merely imposing a human constructed ordering system on a purely chaotic universe?

Posted by Grendel at 2007-12-07 01:31 PM

Great question. Yes I believe that math exists independent of human beings. Personally, i don't believe that logic, truth, or the fundamental nature of the universe (as described with math) require human intervention. I don't believe that the universe is chaotic, in that a chaotic universe would likely implode and cease to exist. Maybe there are other universes that are 'chaotic' (I guess it depends on how you define the word) but have ceased to exist.

I also agree on science never being 100 percent positive on anything, though certain things we are pretty darned close to positive.

Where as 'religion' claims to be 100 percent positive, it really isn't either.

I also agree on science never being 100 percent positive on anything, though certain things we are pretty darned close to positive.

Except in the authority of the scientific method itself. This you are required to accept 100 percent. How does one objectively test the scientific method itself? How do you measure the accuracy of a ruler? What other "ruler" can you use to test the scientific method? If you could even find one, how do you test the accuracy of that?


Where as 'religion' claims to be 100 percent positive, it really isn't either.

There are articles of faith in almost every religion. These are the givens, the initial premises, upon which other beliefs are built.

Of course, all systems of thought make truth claims, thus positiveness or certainty is not found in the knowledge system (be it religious, scientific or anything else) itself but in an individual's assessment of those claims.

The ability to accept any premise requires a leap of faith, the length of that leap and one's willingness to make it is what separates these systems of knowledge from each other for an individual.


Cheers

Hello Spud, I will have to google Milton Friedman and learn more.

Love is always the answer no matter wot the question is.

But that begs the question:

What is love?


Cheers

Except in the authority of the scientific method itself. This you are required to accept 100 percent. How does one objectively test the scientific method itself? How do you measure the accuracy of a ruler? What other "ruler" can you use to test the scientific method? If you could even find one, how do you test the accuracy of that?

Posted by Grendel at 2007-12-07 02:40 PM

Actually, people have questioned certain aspects of the 'scientific method', and maybe there are ways to improve upon it. Scientists can love to be shown to be wrong in the pursuit of truth.

You actually can test the accuracy of a ruler (technically), when you know what it's limitations are. That's what math is for.

I think the big problem with religion is that anyone who believes is bound by the tenets of belief to find ANY way in which God could or does exist. It's the reason why Skizziks and Pirate are going to have a circular conversation until eternity.

Skizziks can demand logical answers until he's blue in the face, but Pirate yielding ANY ground in his argument that Skizziks is required to prove God doesn't exists opens the door to the idea that God may NOT exist.

For many Christians, letting doubt enter their mind that their beliefs may not be true can be the beginning of the collapse in all of their beliefs, since the credit for all of their successes, failures, mistakes, wrongs, rights, would belong to them and not a god who loves them and forgives all sins.

At the end of the day, the only things we have to rely on are the physical, and the science behind them. God isn't going to feed your children. Science and human effort feed your children.

God may have created science, but he sure hasn't taken credit for it himself.

And as far as double standards, I've said it here before and I'll say it again...

Why are children who believe in imaginary friends different than adults who believe in God and his resurrected son Jesus the Christ?

Does math exist independent of human beings?

Math is nothing but a language used to describe the Universe to other men. Therefore unless there are other men or rather other intelligent beings in need of a language to describe their Universe then math does not exist independent of humans.

Just like God.

But donnerboy, you say unless there are other intelligent beings. Maybe there are.

I agree with you that math is a way of describing things, but those things being described exist and the way they exist are there whether humanity exists or not. In that way, math exists, but I see what you are getting at.

Also, Pirate is asking for the impossible, you cannot prove a negative. We could easily say that unicorns exist until you prove otherwise, but of course that isn't a valid argument is it?

Math is a language of pure logic. I know that is true. I saw Spock say it on Star Trek once.

Why are children who believe in imaginary friends different than adults who believe in God and his resurrected son Jesus the Christ?

This is not so much a genuine question as a statement of your belief or lack of belief in God and a hint of condescension to people who believe.

Implicit in your question is that a belief in God is the eqivalant to the belief in an imaginary friend unless someone can explain to you that they are not. Moreover the comparison to a belief in God to children believing in an imaginary friend slyly suggests that people who believe in God are like children--naive and irrational, and by extension people who don't believe in God are like adults. Why should I accept that?

Furthermore, your question equates the concept of what a friend is with the concept of God (whether either are imaginary or not). Why should those things be equated? I have friends, but I don't think any of them are omniscient, omnipotent creators of the universe.

Your question is a classic apples and oranges.



Here is a question for you, and I will even use your belief that God is imaginary.

How are people who believe in an imaginary God who creates meaning for their existence really any different than people who don't believe in God but who create an imaginary meaning for their own life? It seems to me that both live their lives according to a fiction.



Cheers

Grendel, I'll take a stab at two of your questions, if you don't mind. The first answer is serious, the second... not so much, but I think you'll understand it (we've had a good laugh or two in the past, so I hope you won't take offense, I'm trying to goad another chuckle out of you).

First re your 2258:

How are people who believe in an imaginary God who creates meaning for their existence really any different than people who don't believe in God but who create an imaginary meaning for their own life?

What is love?

In that way, math exists, but I see what you are getting at.

I believe you just might be...

You see all those "things" may or may not exist at all if man does not exist (assuming no other intelligent life, which more that likely should we encounter them we will probably consider them Gods compared to us anyway...but if we are all dead who cares?) and math is just a language man has made up to describe these things and the time and space within the known (and possibly unknown) Universe(s).

In the same sense, God is a creation of man to describe something we sense in this Universe that is more powerful that us. Have you noticed that how as we get wiser and smarter as a species (not that we are that clever yet) God has fewer and fewer places to hide?

The billion names of God.

Grendel's question gets directly to the two sides of the proposition. Some propose that there is a God behind it all and some propose there is not and how are these people any different from each other.

Fact is, neither proposition can be proved at this time.

Yet we continue to fight wars and slaughter each other over the very nature of this proposition.

and so it goes on our little mote of dust in hanging in a sunbeam in space...

Grendel - This is so hard for you to understand and hard for me to understand why it is hard for you to understand. It's not complicated.

We're social animals. We give our lives purpose by giving it value to other living things, whether it human, animal or plant. We get our sense of self worth by how others regard us. Make yourself useful and your life will have meaning. It's all very real.

Religion, by creating an artificial construct, actually moves us away from reality. Or to say it another way, it displaces reality. Man has a tendency to create myths for things he does not understand. Religion epitomizes that tendency, as does politics.

When I read the way most people think on this site, it's like watching sausage being made.No wonder we have the kind of rotten corrupt political system we have.

It is funny that when you look for information posted about the LDS church, all that you get is negative, hateful information. This story is accurate about the facts regarding the Mormon Church. But almost all of the comments afterword are negative.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why? In a football game, do you try to tackle someone without the ball?

All of you who spew anti-mormon lies need to step back and realize that the Savior himself was crucified... he stirred up more hate from those who sound just like you! Even though he carried a message of love. They hated him so much that they murdered him.

It sounds like that hate is still alive an well. For all of you who think you have the answers, look around and ponder this:

Why doesn't anyone persicute you? Because you don't have the ball.

If all that you can come up with against Mitt Romney is your hatred for his chruch... think again.

And by the way, do you know what a cult is? It is just an insult. A 12 million member cult? Isn't that a stretch?

Mitt '08

Mormons.....slightly less crazy than Scientologists.

This is so hard for you to understand and hard for me to understand why it is hard for you to understand. It's not complicated

I don't know Ray why is it hard for you to understand that given your view of the universe that the self worth and meaning that we give ourselves are merely convenient fictions that allow us to keep going day by day. They have no reality in what Dawkins calls a meaningless universe. The only difference is that you believe one fiction is useful and one is not. Of course, the belief that one is more useful than another is also a fiction according to a set of values that we further create to prop up these and so on.

Useful? To what end? To our happiness? But happiness isn't real, not in any empirical way. You say man creates myths or religion that move us away from reality. You are incredulous that I cannot see that. I am incredulous that given your position you cannot see that living your life to the fullest philsophy is also an unreal myth to help you cope with a meaningless universe.

The road of subjectivism, relativism and skepticism if travelled to their natural conclusions leads to nihilism. Usefulness and happiness are just illusions that we, therefore, use to keep up from accepting that. They are fictions that our mind creates for us to avoid emotional pain of meaninglessness. And that is my point. Fictions are fictions; that you think yours is a better one (or even recognize it as one) does not make it any less a fiction.

Let's boil it down some basic questions.

Do you believe that your own life is important? Does the universe?

Which answer is the reality? What does that make the other one?

I am willing to bet that you live your life as if it is important.

Imaginary God? Imaginary meaning or importance?

Fiction is fiction.

In your system both our realities are actually fairy tales of a kind. My fairy tale differs from yours only in that I believe that my fairy tale has a fairy tale author.

Cheers

Actually, We are to believe in God like children.

You are closer understanding God than you even know DD.

Better not let your friends find out.


Great football analogy Justin!

And I couldn't say it better myself Grendel.


Why would you not want to believe there is something out there greater than yourself anyway? Even if you don't feel the Holy Spirit, it is still counterproductive from a utilitarian viewpoint.

Talk about not making any sense.

It's a biochemical reaction that prevents someone from shooting his cheating spouse or strangling his bratty children?

I'm sorry, I know, that was bad, bad, bad of me, but damnit I thought it was funny!

Letusreason,

Your joke retort reminded me of a Calvin and Hobbes strip.

CALVIN: Hmph! I'll bet my biological mother would've bought me a comic book and made me feel better instead of shunning me like you.

MOM: Kid, anyone but your biological mother would've left you to the wolves long ago.


Taking into account that you've used the belief, and therefore assuming, that God is imaginary, my response to your question is: Both meanings come from within. But he who believes, believes that his meaning comes from without (and is therefore "wrong"), whereas he who doesn't believe, knows his meaning comes from within (and is therefore "correct"). Again, remember we're going under the assumption that God does not exist. Personally I think they're both wasting time trying to find meaning in life, but that's just me.

I like your reasoning, but knowing where your meaning comes from doesn't make it any less of a fiction. Both live their lives according to something that is artifical or unreal.

Cheers and good night. I will check back in the morning.

And I couldn't say it better myself Grendel.

Thank you for the compliment, Bocaink.

Actually, We are to believe in God like children.

I think this important statement sums up so much of the Judeo-Christian faiths.

The longer I am a parent, the more I believe in the worth of that analogy.

Cheers

and good night again.

I don't know Ray why is it hard for you to understand that given your view of the universe that the self worth and meaning that we give ourselves are merely convenient fictions that allow us to keep going day by day.

Grendel - all you are telling me is that you don't have the capability to distinguish what is real from what is imaginary.

Of course, the belief that one is more useful than another is also a fiction according to a set of values that we further create to prop up these and so on.

That proposition ignores a long history of tyranny, misery and oppression that come from religious and political institutions. You don't see that where science, reality based reason and the axiom of non-initiated aggression is practiced. One social structure is based on command and control; the other is based on social cooperation where all men are created with equal rights towards life, liberty and property.

We live on terra firma. Barring a meteor collision, what goes on in the universe is irrelevant to our well being. Both religious and political institutions have failed to produce. They are opponents of what they claim to be proponents. It's not nihilism; it's iconoclasm. I know it's a radical concept and I'm in a tiny minority. But that is where truth leads.

"convenient fictions that allow us to keep going"

They're called hypotheses, or, for the more successful, theories. They are not real. They are not true. They do not mean anything. But they allow us to keep going.

Grendel, regarding your 0012, and it might be too late here:

I like your reasoning, but knowing where your meaning comes from doesn't make it any less of a fiction. Both live their lives according to something that is artificial or unreal.