Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)
-
- CommentAuthorBregje
- CommentTimeApr 8th 2009 edited
Martijn wrote:
Timmer wrote
Is it possible to comprehend something that has always been!? Is it possible mankind has a need to understand a begining and end to the universe due to the fact of our own mortality, a fact that we cannot conceive of anything that has no begining nor end?
I was thinking to add the exact same consideration to my earlier post!!!
Yes, you are so right, and this is my feeling as well: I don't think we are currently able to conceive on anything but the most abstract level of the concept of true eternity[/i].
That it is our own linear existence that we hold -necessarily- to be the measure of things outside us as well, as it it is truly the ultimate thing we measure ourselves by.
Yes, all our experiences are in time and space. We cannot imagine an experiencable world without time and space. Would we see the true world, reality, the truth, if we could experience without that and without other human limits such as our senses? -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 8th 2009
franz_conrad wrote
Martijn wrote
franz_conrad wrote
- something once originated out of something, that originated out of something, etc [ad infinitum]
- something once originated out of nothing
As Parmenides (paraphrasedly) said: Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Out of nothing comes nothing.
I dispute that. Somehow without my saying anything, you got the idea I said the above, and quoted me on it. Something came out of nothing all right!
Clever. -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeApr 9th 2009 edited
Bregje wrote
Martijn wrote:
Timmer wrote
Is it possible to comprehend something that has always been!? Is it possible mankind has a need to understand a begining and end to the universe due to the fact of our own mortality, a fact that we cannot conceive of anything that has no begining nor end?
I was thinking to add the exact same consideration to my earlier post!!!
Yes, you are so right, and this is my feeling as well: I don't think we are currently able to conceive on anything but the most abstract level of the concept of true eternity[/i].
That it is our own linear existence that we hold -necessarily- to be the measure of things outside us as well, as it it is truly the ultimate thing we measure ourselves by.
Yes, all our experiences are in time and space. We cannot imagine an experiencable world without time and space. Would we see the true world, reality, the truth, if we could experience without that and without other human limits such as our senses?
Martijn, your cyclical remark on the previous page reminds me of an Isaac Asimov story called 'The Last Question', which can be read here:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
As always, Asimov wasn't exactly a brilliant writer, but the ideas in his work are often fascinating, and here he looks at the relationship between human progress and the omnipotence of a deity as a cyclical process.
I also struggle with the time and space issues that come into play when you consider the origins of everything. Particularly the time issue - although my affection for sci-fi literature has probably helped me imagine my way around the idea of time being a linear process (it just seems that way when you're caught up in it, I think).
I find I struggle with the idea that complex processes, structures and species - whose very survival involve a certain amount of inter-dependence - could have emerged gradually, piece by the piece. I find it a cleaner explanation to believe that these things came to be simultaneously, as a result of a force that was sufficiently forceful to bring them into existence as a system. I know for many that isn't a cleaner explanation, but it probably shows that I'm a 'something from something' person.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorBregje
- CommentTimeApr 9th 2009
Yeah, and force, what would that be... just wondering.
I'm always thinking that human understanding is limited and logic is a human thing as well. Just try to imagine a third option next to something out of something or something out of nothing. It's just that we think there's nothing else than nothing or something. -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeApr 9th 2009
Well, there is everything.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 10th 2009
Good grief. I find myself conflicted: I acknowledge that this is probably an ironic [and well done] joke, but I do kinda want to believe that this guy is completely sincere!:
http://ebaumnation.com/2009/04/07/problem-with-atheists -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009 edited
-
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Un-fucking-believable!
The guy in the beany was veering strongly to Alan Partridge'isms.....that was the funny side.
As Martlon Brando once told James Dean, "kid, you need therapy".On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
I'm assuming you realise it was in irony? (But, unfortunately, all taken from real opinions.) -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Steven wrote
I'm assuming you realise it was in irony? (But, unfortunately, all taken from real opinions.)
I did wonder but then I'm still suffering intense migraine attacks at the moment and the drugs I'm taken are making me VERY dull headed.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
I'm assuming you realise it was in irony? (But, unfortunately, all taken from real opinions.)
I did wonder but then I'm still suffering intense migraine attacks at the moment and the drugs I'm taken are making me VERY dull headed.
My Dad suffers from migraines, so I can definitely appreciate the effect it has. Fortunately though I can't relate.
-
- CommentAuthorMarselus
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
I'm assuming you realise it was in irony? (But, unfortunately, all taken from real opinions.)
I did wonder but then I'm still suffering intense migraine attacks at the moment and the drugs I'm taken are making me VERY dull headed.
What do you take when the migraine comes Tim? I´m a Maxalt Max addict.Anything with an orchestra or with a choir....at some point will reach you -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
I think the only thing that works on a migraine is morphine. -
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Tim do you try some deep breathing exercises? I heard they're effective in controlling migraines. -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
DemonStar wrote
Tim do you try some deep breathing exercises? I heard they're effective in controlling migraines.
Never heard of that???On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Steven wrote
I think the only thing that works on a migraine is morphine.
Yeap! Some smack and two pipes of crack seem to sort it fine.
What I'm taking is Dihydrocodeine, it's strong shit and sends me off with the fairies, at least it makes music a very pleasurable experience.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Timmer wrote
DemonStar wrote
Tim do you try some deep breathing exercises? I heard they're effective in controlling migraines.
Never heard of that???
It's a part of yoga. I read that practicing them alongside the regular medication is very helpful for a lot of such health problems.
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
I think the only thing that works on a migraine is morphine.
Yeap! Some smack and two pipes of crack seem to sort it fine.
What I'm taking is Dihydrocodeine, it's strong shit and sends me off with the fairies, at least it makes music a very pleasurable experience.
My Dad was prescribed some marijuana that he puts in his tea. I had some too!
-
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
I think the only thing that works on a migraine is morphine.
Yeap! Some smack and two pipes of crack seem to sort it fine.
What I'm taking is Dihydrocodeine, it's strong shit and sends me off with the fairies, at least it makes music a very pleasurable experience.
My Dad was prescribed some marijuana that he puts in his tea. I had some too!
Do you mind if I ask why he was prescribed it?On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
I think the only thing that works on a migraine is morphine.
Yeap! Some smack and two pipes of crack seem to sort it fine.
What I'm taking is Dihydrocodeine, it's strong shit and sends me off with the fairies, at least it makes music a very pleasurable experience.
My Dad was prescribed some marijuana that he puts in his tea. I had some too!
Do you mind if I ask why he was prescribed it?
Very bad migraine problems I believe, I think it was a 'test run' prescription (or something like that). Looks like tea leafs - which is good, because you put it tea. -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
Steven wrote
I think the only thing that works on a migraine is morphine.
Yeap! Some smack and two pipes of crack seem to sort it fine.
What I'm taking is Dihydrocodeine, it's strong shit and sends me off with the fairies, at least it makes music a very pleasurable experience.
My Dad was prescribed some marijuana that he puts in his tea. I had some too!
Do you mind if I ask why he was prescribed it?
Very bad migraine problems I believe, I think it was a 'test run' prescription (or something like that). Looks like tea leafs - which is good, because you put it tea.
Right man I'm off to the Doc to get me some o'dat shit On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Score us some will ya? It's good shit man.
-
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2009
Steven wrote
Score us some will ya? It's good shit man.
Uhhh like sure thing Steven dood.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeMay 16th 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8049711.stm
On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
PawelStroinski wrote
I'm Christian Catholic, but not a creationist or whatever. I believe in a non-literal meaning of the Bible, which is basically the story of Revelation, rather than a literal history of the world. I believe that a lot of the Biblical stories are a metaphor (or, to use the Patristic/Medieval terminology - allegory). That makes me not reject any scientific discovery, but stay firmly within some ethical beliefs (I am not against homosexuality, my best friends are gay, in fact socially they are the only men I can tolerate in a very LONG run; also I wouldn't mind gay marriage, Proposition 8 sucks, California people; I have issues with abortion though).
Most recently I am rediscovering, or rather discovering philosophy. My favorite of the 20th century "systems" (systematic philosophy ended on G. W. F. Hegel) is hermeneutics, which derives, of course, from Christianity (hermeneutics was originally a method to understand the Bible), but became an existential philosophy or even practical (hermeneutics = understanding, hermeneutical philosophy assumes that we try to understand the world around us through conversations - German Gesprach, a Hans-Georg Gadamer term - and helps us understand OURSELVES more, it assumes a general contact between us, other people and tradition). My research deals with heavily Biblical/Christian period of culture as well, namely 17th Century. I also believe in a very personal (ie. conversational) relation with God, who, hopefully, has a plan. Why? One of the reasons is surely that I didn't get a proof against His existence (with the right interpretation of the Bible you won't reject science as is, the relation between religion and science isn't so conflicting. As an example, I should give an example of Michal Heller. The man is a physicist. He deals with the creation of the Universe (cosmology) and his research is heavily respected by his peers (as far as I know, Heller is famous in the physics society), but also a Catholic priest, theologist and philosopher (philosopher of science, namely). I don't think he openly tries to find a mathematical formula to prove God's existence (we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, people! Faith is faith and there is a choice between reason and faith and the choice is made in full consciousness, as Kierkegaard discovered it in the 19th Century, reason and faith are at constant fight and believing is difficult). Another reason for me staying Christian Catholic is taking the Pascalian bet (we don't lose anything if we believe in God, so it's better to believe just in case). And I also like the notion of something above us. I strongly believe that we shouldn't think we are completely alone in the world and nothing spiritual exists, because we need some humility in approach to reality.
Ready for attacks now.
plindboe wrote
PawelStroinski wrote
I know, but after all the discussion I felt I finally needed to express my own views. Even if to prove Steven that Christians can be actually sensible
Sorry, but I don't find several of the reasons you gave sensible, Pascal's wager being one of the more silly ones or saying that belief in the supernatural has anything to do with humility, but I guess this is not the thread for such discussion.
I've no problems with christians, but when I see poor arguments I can't help but comment. Good to hear that you're one of the saner ones, Pawel, even though I don't agree with everything you say.
Back to the relaxing topic. *pulls out a big soft couch and starts reading a good book
Peter
I prefer the Atheist's Wager myself:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him. -
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
It was only when I read Dan Brown's latest novel that I finally understood what the title of this thread meant. And people say they're not educational!
-
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeDec 6th 2009
Southall wrote
It was only when I read Dan Brown's latest novel that I finally understood what the title of this thread meant. And people say they're not educational!
The Lost Symbol? That one totally went over my head. Unlike Angels & Demons and Da Vinci Code, which actually kept up my interest, this one dragged on in a lot of places and after reading the final chapter, I was like "so what exactly was all that about?". I did like [spoiler]the villian turning out to be Solomon's son[/spoiler], but that's it. Lucky I had just borrowed it from a friend, I'm not buying it. -
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeDec 6th 2009
I really enjoyed reading the previous two in the series, tosh though they are. This one was equally tosh, but just not very good. -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeDec 6th 2009
Steven wrote
PawelStroinski wrote
I'm Christian Catholic, but not a creationist or whatever. I believe in a non-literal meaning of the Bible, which is basically the story of Revelation, rather than a literal history of the world. I believe that a lot of the Biblical stories are a metaphor (or, to use the Patristic/Medieval terminology - allegory). That makes me not reject any scientific discovery, but stay firmly within some ethical beliefs (I am not against homosexuality, my best friends are gay, in fact socially they are the only men I can tolerate in a very LONG run; also I wouldn't mind gay marriage, Proposition 8 sucks, California people; I have issues with abortion though).
Most recently I am rediscovering, or rather discovering philosophy. My favorite of the 20th century "systems" (systematic philosophy ended on G. W. F. Hegel) is hermeneutics, which derives, of course, from Christianity (hermeneutics was originally a method to understand the Bible), but became an existential philosophy or even practical (hermeneutics = understanding, hermeneutical philosophy assumes that we try to understand the world around us through conversations - German Gesprach, a Hans-Georg Gadamer term - and helps us understand OURSELVES more, it assumes a general contact between us, other people and tradition). My research deals with heavily Biblical/Christian period of culture as well, namely 17th Century. I also believe in a very personal (ie. conversational) relation with God, who, hopefully, has a plan. Why? One of the reasons is surely that I didn't get a proof against His existence (with the right interpretation of the Bible you won't reject science as is, the relation between religion and science isn't so conflicting. As an example, I should give an example of Michal Heller. The man is a physicist. He deals with the creation of the Universe (cosmology) and his research is heavily respected by his peers (as far as I know, Heller is famous in the physics society), but also a Catholic priest, theologist and philosopher (philosopher of science, namely). I don't think he openly tries to find a mathematical formula to prove God's existence (we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, people! Faith is faith and there is a choice between reason and faith and the choice is made in full consciousness, as Kierkegaard discovered it in the 19th Century, reason and faith are at constant fight and believing is difficult). Another reason for me staying Christian Catholic is taking the Pascalian bet (we don't lose anything if we believe in God, so it's better to believe just in case). And I also like the notion of something above us. I strongly believe that we shouldn't think we are completely alone in the world and nothing spiritual exists, because we need some humility in approach to reality.
Ready for attacks now.
plindboe wrote
PawelStroinski wrote
I know, but after all the discussion I felt I finally needed to express my own views. Even if to prove Steven that Christians can be actually sensible
Sorry, but I don't find several of the reasons you gave sensible, Pascal's wager being one of the more silly ones or saying that belief in the supernatural has anything to do with humility, but I guess this is not the thread for such discussion.
I've no problems with christians, but when I see poor arguments I can't help but comment. Good to hear that you're one of the saner ones, Pawel, even though I don't agree with everything you say.
Back to the relaxing topic. *pulls out a big soft couch and starts reading a good book
Peter
I prefer the Atheist's Wager myself:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
It's kind of the same, but taken from a different perspective!http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeDec 6th 2009
The major difference is that it's completely unselfish. Pascal's Wager is very much about self-preservation: "If I believe in God, I will be rewarded. If I don't, I won't."
Admittedly Pascal's Wager is an ideal philosophy to those who already believe in God, granted, but it's a very poor reason to give to non-believers since it assumes you can simply choose your beliefs. It also creates a false dichotomy of possibilities based on very presumptuous beliefs; a) that God rewards your belief in him/her/it or simply b) a benevolent God does not exist. It also doesn't specify which God to believe in since there are so many deities humans have created.
In any case, Pascal's Wager runs into far too many illogicalities to even bear considering.