|
Donations |
|
 |
|
|
|
If you found this site helpful, please donate to help keep it online
Don't want to use PayPal? Try our physical address
|
|
|
Survey |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is God real? |
| Yes |
|
65% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
30% |
[ 6 ] |
| Maybe |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 20 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Jamming
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 1874
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ekrubtap, your definitely a good athiest, I guess we should leave you to your own religion as you don't understand either the God of the Bible or the reasons behind the Christ.
You try to define the infinite with words of limitations, God is both perfect and not perfect. he is all things, the "I am". Whenyou cease to live in casuality then result you begin to understand what is God. The Christ's reason for being is to bridge the gap between us and God, neither to deny what is the nature of man that Christ experienced nor the divine nature of his sacrifice and being.
God is even you in your denile of him, you serve God's purpose in this argument. What that purpose is, is beyond me at this time, but I am sure the infinite fit you in somehow. My belief cannot be shaken by your so called facts, just as your belief in athiesm cannot be shaken by my facts or beliefs.
Your arguments will remain hollow and self centered until the day of your death, whereas my actions will be attempting to fill greater ideals than my own. I prefer my life in belief to your "facts", rationally who wouldn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jammers said:
| Quote: |
| I prefer my life in belief to your "facts", rationally who wouldn't. |
Yeesh! I sure wouldn't.
That is, if I have correctly interpreted your statement. Jammers, your spelling, grammar, and sentence structure are bad and full of errors, so I may have misunderstood your sentence. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I am not a grammatical magician, and I do have the integrity to allow different interpretations of your words, whether I agree with them or not - a concept you and your fellow religionists might take note of.
Anyway, one way I could interpret your sentence is that you might be saying "I prefer to live in my fantasies and delusions than face the sadness, ugliness, and horror of the verifiable facts of life." But I don't think that's what you're saying. I think what you're saying is "I would prefer to live my life based on my reglious beliefs and the beliefs of my faith, rather than your facts, so-called." Is that right? Is that what you're trying to say? Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your rough sentence.
Living a life based soley on beliefs to the exclusion of verifiable facts* is living a life based on ephemera, misinformation, groundless bias, and incomplete data. I would argue, and given the time would be happy to present vast amounts of backup data, that Pat's interpretation of the bible is probably far and away more accurate than yours, and is most certainly far and away more accurate than the majority of credulous religionists who have not the moral courage, the intellectual skill or facility, nor the analytical capacity to read the bible using critical thought, skepticism, and reasonable doubt. Jammers, do you know any professional biblical scholars? Have a chat with 'em pally. You might be surprised - if you can get past your stubborn, resistant insistence on ephemera, nonsense, and magic.
* Remember, facts are provable, verifiable, and reproducible bits of physical actuality, not make believe based on personal bias. Facts are not opinions.
Note: Jamming, I would have thought that as a moderator in this fora you would be entrusted to be neutral, informed, and objective. In my years of running BBSs, and other public fora, that has always been my understanding of the responsibility of a modetator. Is that not relevant here?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamming
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 1874
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did I moderate you??? No I didn't, so that is a false argument, I don't have to be on your side. Your statements disguised as pointed questions continue to show another level of ignorance on your part. You cannot attack the message so you attack the grammar, spelling, and sentence structure showing again your ignorance and hollowness of your message. Your are a child in a man's art, you have no knowledge of an exchange of ideas so you attack yet again.
If everything which is not proven is Magic? Then you must live in a more fanciful world than I. Because then everything that you cannot prove yourself is magic to you. Cause and effect, still limits your viewpoint. Sometimes things may happen due to nothing in relation to your theories. I guess you never heard of Chaos Theory or anything over a limited argument of straight Aristotelean Logic.
Your fixation with your situation is what leads you to your inadequate thinking in this matter. Your experience as a BBS moderator is not germane to anything, but you bring this up because you hate someone in authority here, not agreeing with your point of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Did I moderate you? No I didn't, so that is a false argument... |
I never said you did. I was just making a passing comment on your tone, stance, and POV. So, you see, there is no false aregument because there was no argument - see the last note on this post.
| Quote: |
| You cannot attack the message so you attack the grammar.... |
Well, no. I attacked the grammar because it made your message meaningless - sorry, not meaningless but somewhat confusing. When grammar, spelling, and sentence structure fail then it's pretty damned difficult to be certain what someone is trying to say. Do you not see my point? Furthermore, I attacked your message because I thought it was flawed. But that is, obviously, only a matter of opinion; my opinion.
| Quote: |
| Your are a child in a man's art, you have no knowledge of an exchange of ideas.... |
Huh? Sorry, I really must admit I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with that statement. I do indeed have very clear knowledge of what an exchange of ideas is. An exchange of ideas is simply that; an exchange of ideas. If you mean that because I do not agree with your ideas I am a child... well, how can I respond to that?
| Quote: |
| If everything which is not proven is Magic? Then you must live in a more fanciful world than I. |
Heh, heh. You have quite completely misunderstood me. I have usually been a rhetorician who argues that if the message is utterly missed it has to be principally the writers fault. So I must take the blame for your complete misunderstanding of my comment - but I'm not going bother reiterating my point at this time.
| Quote: |
| Cause and effect, still limits your viewpoint. Sometimes things may happen due to nothing in relation to your theories. |
I must say I'm sorry, but you've competely lost me there. Completely. How does cause and effect limit my viewpoint? For that matter, how can cause and effect limit - or have any affect - on anyone's viewpoint? That is a thoroughly baffling statement to me. Please explain. As to the second sentence in that quote I am so completely mystified by it that I can't even attempt an interpretation. What on earth are you trying to say?
| Quote: |
| Your fixation with your situation... |
What situation? Huh?
| Quote: |
| Your experience as a BBS moderator is not germane to anything, but you bring this up because you hate someone in authority here, not agreeing with your point of view. |
I never was a bbs mod, but I have owned and run some bbss. I was just trying to emphasize, or highlight, or point out that in my experience moderators generally tried to be objective, understanding of all sides of any posted arguments, and tried not to take a stand unless it was of paramount importance to keeping things within the bbs or the thread functioning smoothly - or at least to keep things on track - but not to direct the ideas being expressed, only the form of expression.
So, is all that clear at all? Have I clarified my points, or thought, or ideas at all?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMOV
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 1590
Location: hovering nearby
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jamming wrote: |
Did I moderate you??? No I didn't, so that is a false argument, I don't have to be on your side. Your statements disguised as pointed questions continue to show another level of ignorance on your part. You cannot attack the message so you attack the grammar, spelling, and sentence structure showing again your ignorance and hollowness of your message. Your are a child in a man's art, you have no knowledge of an exchange of ideas so you attack yet again.
If everything which is not proven is Magic? Then you must live in a more fanciful world than I. Because then everything that you cannot prove yourself is magic to you. Cause and effect, still limits your viewpoint. Sometimes things may happen due to nothing in relation to your theories. I guess you never heard of Chaos Theory or anything over a limited argument of straight Aristotelean Logic.
Your fixation with your situation is what leads you to your inadequate thinking in this matter. Your experience as a BBS moderator is not germane to anything, but you bring this up because you hate someone in authority here, not agreeing with your point of view. |
what is clear is that you are not really a part of any on going discourse, rather you are part of the problem not the solution.
find a more suitable place for your objectionable comments.jamming gets accused of being a moderator out of his box as you would like to make it, but i'm not!
and i am exercising my civic responsibility, maybe you dont think that there are people that notice how out of the ordinary your choice of words are,but there are plenty of us who have noticed and made remarks about the oddness of your behavior.
do you have a mental disorder?
i met quite a few mentally disturbed veterans at the dept of veterans affairs hospitals; you can always tell when they are not taking their prescribed neuroleptic medications because their behavior and their speech, which is realated to their thinking, is so way off the centerline that they eventually get taken down by security people and then placed in six point restraints an kept in the "flight deck"
that's so that they don't flee, they are considered a flight risk and a danger to themselves and others.
do you fall into any of the aformentioned categories?
if you do, you can be assured that if you dont get help on your own ,help will come to you against your will.
tmov
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My goodness gracious and great googly moogly, as Frank would have said. Ain't we havin' fun.
| Quote: |
| what is clear is that you are not really a part of any on going discourse, rather you are part of the problem not the solution. |
Well, in fact, I am part of the discourse. That's what this is all about. Discourse equals chit-chat and has no definitive constraints demanding fun or a lack of rocking any boats. And what problem? What solution? Discourse often involves disagreement, even fierce disagreement. If you don't want me in here disagreeing with you, that's fine, but I would suggest that makes it pretty clear you don't want discourse, you want sycophancy and happy circle jerks. Which is also fine, if that's the way you want it. But you sure won't expand your knowledge that way.
| Quote: |
| jamming gets accused of being a moderator out of his box.... |
Jamming was not accused of being a moderator. He is a moderator. It says so on his window ticket.  I accused him of acting in a slightly unmoderatorish way. That seems like pretty ligth-weight stuff to me. Editorial addendum: I just noticed that Jamming is a forum admin, which is even more powerful  than a moderator. I stand corrected.
| Quote: |
| i am exercising my civic responsibility |
Exercise away, it's your and my allowance to say what we wish so long as we do not offensively insult one another or otherwise purposefully cause direct harm. Of course the cookie tends to crumble around the determination of what is or is not an insult. But anyway, I don't think I've done anything out of the pale, or warranting any sort of disciplinary action - as you seem to be implying. After all, this is supposed to be a place of discourse, is it not? That does not mean a place of peaceful agreement and happy campfire sing-a-longs. Discourse and real communication leading to learning and the expansion of knowledge involve challenges including strong disagreement, conflict, and tension. If you do not want strong disagreement, conflict, and tension, then you must not want Discourse and real communication leading to learning and the expansion of knowledge. Which I would propose is your loss.
| Quote: |
| there are people that notice how out of the ordinary your choice of words are,but there are plenty of us who have noticed and made remarks about the oddness of your behavior.... do you have a mental disorder? |
 That's a bit of a hoot. Is that the final frontier for a frustrated religionist? To make accusations about mental health? My oh my. I should hope some folks would notice the words I use. I am a professional writer both by trade and by nature. I tend to be a rather verbose but erudite and to some degree sophisticated kind of a guy. Arrogant too. Furthermore, I love language. I also love dictionaries. If you find my words difficult, buy a dictionary. They're cheap and hold within their covers a vast and wonderful world of knowledge, variety, and character.
| Quote: |
| .... do you fall into any of the aformentioned categories? |
No you silly, silly man, I do not fall into those categories. If you (please note the modifier "if") have been unfortunate enough to have experienced a lack of higher education, and/or if you are uncomfortable with advanced language, rhetoric, and sophisticated use of words, grammar, and language, I can try to tone things down. Would you like that? Would that make me appear less threatening?
It seems to be that that is at the core of the issue here. Because I am not particularily gentle in my criticisms of blind faith or any other form of what I perceive (in my apparent state of lightning bolt inducing sin) as religious mummery, you wish to accuse me of being nuts. Well, okay. Fair's fair I guess.
Have a nice day.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: God? |
|
|
| shamash wrote: |
| Yes Ekrubtap i agree with you and see that i needed to be a bit more precise here( i'm not perfect like God, but is God actually perfect- that's another story) Let take the example of Jesus Christ. He lived a life of sacrifice and giving yet he too retained ego to a certain degree, though far less that the average person of todays world. So the release of ego of which i speak is not a complete loss, but a great lessening compared to most people in todays society almost so that it would seem to be non-existent. |
I would tend to think, shamash that an "Imperfect God" would be just another in an endless string of malleable interpretations of God. One thing that can be said for God is that he/she/it is indeed all things to all believers. Maybe the best argument against the possibilty of God is the fact that God has never been static; changes with differing authors, changes with the times, changes with the moods of religious authority figures. The more variations, however, the more points of potential conflict. (see above  ) Jammings "all things" God seems to me to be impossible, if not self-imploding. This interpretation would be God as the source of all evil, God as the devil, god as schizophrenic (existing side by side with the opposite qualities, of course and wouldn't that be a major conflict in an "imperfect" God. Given that as the case, I think the world would be even worse off than it is.
Regarding Jesus and ego, I can't help but think that to aspire to Godhood would require an ego the size of the universe  . Certainly the Father figure is monumentally ego-ized. But again, that's a given, given Godliness. Jesus, in the biblical stories,seems to alternate between displays of ego and moments of humility (Lord, it's hard to be humble).
Of course as a paid up member of the Athiest Alliance of Abandonment and Abasement (that's where we meet), this is all academic to me. Christianity, to me, is mythology. One element in a seemingly timeless pantheon. Christianity and it's sister religion of Islam, are both derived from the religion of the Hebrews, which in turn is derived from eastern mythology. (All this co-dependancy and we're killing each other, same God, different Devils)
In the case of Jesus , where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with no separate secular sources, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth.
There may have been a King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. though King Arthur is far more probable and believable than God/Jesus. But this is where "faith" comes into play. What is faith? In a word, trust. Don't think, trust us. (similar situation occuring in some secular segments of society now, by individuals only too happy to bring up the name of God, 'cause of course, God's on their side; killing in the name o' God.)(and they use it because they know it works).
Yes I agree with you that we could all stand to have our egos ratcheted down. I fear it's a bit of a pipe dream, though, as long as there is gain to be had and greed to have it. Some times i wish there was a God and that great Godly hand would reach down to earth and snap a few people on the back of the head. It'll never happen, though. It's up to us. We have to be God.
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shamash
Corporal
Joined: Mar 21, 2004
Posts: 70
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:54 pm Post subject: God? |
|
|
| Well Ekrubtap, or is it Pat Burke? Personally i don't believe the Bible is correct in its interpertation of God or Jesus Christ. The Bible is full of old stories, misinterpretations, and outright lies(in some cases). That's one of the problems, there is so much misinformation out there about God it can make it very difficult to believe. But i'm not here to try to convince you one way or the other. You have every right to believe whatever you wish (thank God for the separation of church & state)i don't think God will love you any less than anyone else for your beliefs. Personally i admire you for your sober outlook on things and your demand for proof attitude is rather refreshing. Your attitude forces others to look more deeply into these issues, which in my opinion is sorely needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vive la difference, shamash!
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surely one of the most potent manifestations of egotism today must be collective religious egotism (or chauvanism). Has to be one of the most destructive forces existing today, along with national chauvanism, and economic chauvanism.
I guess it would begin with an individual belief that God is perpetually interested in your moods, prayers, desires, transgressions, aches and pains etc, and sits around thinking of appropriate and timely punishments (when things go wrong) tailored to your specific sins. And if that doesn't satisfy your ego you can always reflect upon the belief that God decended to earth in the flesh to submit to torture, humility and death on your behalf. Practically the very definition of inflated self worth. Despite scientific advances, those who believe in God still place themselves at the centre of the universe.
Thus anger and rage (as a rule) when religious belief is challenged. Religionatas percieve themselves as personal aquaintances with their deities, and percieve questioning of their beliefs as personal attacks. Thus blasphemy. Thus intolerance. Thus death to the unbeliever.
All three major religions pay lip service to "love your neighbour". But in practice "hate your neighbour if he's not of the true faith" seems to be the norm. Religion is not the cure, religion is the disease.
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamming
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 1874
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The cure is worse than the disease, more people have now been killed in the name of Totalitarianism Socialism than Religion. Millions in Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Jacobian France, Nazi Germany after the Rational Socialists or Socialist Athiests have come to power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMOV
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 1590
Location: hovering nearby
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jamming wrote: |
| The cure is worse than the disease, more people have now been killed in the name of Totalitarianism Socialism than Religion. Millions in Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Jacobian France, Nazi Germany after the Rational Socialists or Socialist Athiests have come to power. |
don't they keep getting religion confused with faith?
i think they do.
t
_________________
TMOV
crisis is opportunity riding on the dangerous wind.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jamming wrote: |
| The cure is worse than the disease, more people have now been killed in the name of Totalitarianism Socialism than Religion. Millions in Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Jacobian France, Nazi Germany after the Rational Socialists or Socialist Athiests have come to power. |
I fail to see the connection here, Jamming. You are infering that "Totalitarianism Socialism" is the logical alternative to religion and "that dog don't hunt". The alternative could be anything workable.
Yes,most of those regimes you list were of an atheist nature, but as an adjunct to the main thrust of economics, power, and usurpation of repressive regimes. The nazis prefered their Norse gods to the god of Abraham or Jesus. Other than that we have no disagreement here. I, nor any other atheist I know, would no more advocate those types of governmental models than you. To do so would merely be replacing one repressive entity with another.
Religion and faith are not a dichotomy. They are for all intents and purposes synonymous. Religion is belief in a superhuman controlling power that is entitled to obedience and worship, and the expression of your particular system of faith or worship.
Faith is a religion or creed, or complete trust or confidence especially in religious belief. You can't have one without the other.
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamming
Colonel
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 22, 2002
Posts: 1874
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wrong, Faith has nothing to do with Religion and until you understand what is meant by that you will never understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jamming wrote: |
| Wrong, Faith has nothing to do with Religion and until you understand what is meant by that you will never understand. |
So what then is religion based on, empirical evidence? Vintage film footage of Christ on a pogo stick? Word of mouth?
And what is faith? A desire to form a belief in the possibility of the impression that you can say with some conviction that you have the opinionated feeling that you may presume to assure yourself with some reliance on the trusted theory of your credo? A country singer with the surname of Hill?
What is faith? What is religion? In what manner does faith have nothing to do with religion?
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8a © 2001 phpBB Group
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Version 2.2 by Paul Laudanski © 2003-2004 Computer Cops
|
You can syndicate our news using the file RSS 0.91, ultramode.txt, or RSS 1.0.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
