INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Calavera on October 02, 2011, 11:02:43 PM
-
Let's quote what Occam's razor is from Wikipedia:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.
Based on that definition above, does Occam's razor favor the existence of some supernatural Creator that supernaturally brought forth this universe into existence? Or does it favor the existence of this universe as a result of springing forth from a singularity without any supernatural sentient being behind it?
In layman's words, which is more plausible (and with less assumptions)? God did it? Or something just happened for no reason at all?
Discuss.
EDIT: Thread title changed according to the current discussion.
-
No.
The assumption that existence needs a "reason" isn't needed and only adds complexity.
-
Fair enough. So Occam's razor doesn't necessarily go with what's more intuitive.
-
Fair enough. So Occam's razor doesn't necessarily go with what's more intuitive.
Why would the assumption of a supernatural being with unlimited powers be the more intuitive alternative?
-
Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).
Have you always imagined there was basically nothing and that somehow something just happened? Even when you were a little kid?
I think that if it weren't for modern scientific discoveries, we'd probably be lacking in the atheistic department and there'd have been more deists instead.
-
Occam's razor favors crank over coke because it lasts longer. Both, however, will rust the razor. :laugh:
-
Not sure it makes sense to try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.
-
Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).
Have you always imagined there was basically nothing and that somehow something just happened? Even when you were a little kid?
I think that if it weren't for modern scientific discoveries, we'd probably be lacking in the atheistic department and there'd have been more deists instead.
Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.
I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.
I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is. There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.
Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.
-
Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.
I know that. You asked me how it was more intuitive not how Occam's razor favors it. So I answered accordingly.
I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.
That's why I added the word "seemingly" there.
I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is.
Fair enough. Although I'm a bit surprised there because humans, apart from proper scientific knowledge, seem to naturally do the opposite of what you've done.
There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.
Ok, back to Occam's razor. Can't something happening for no reason be considered an assumption since it's not something we commonly observe in our daily world?
Just playing the Devil's advocate here.
Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.
How did the start of the Big Bang happen then if it didn't "just happen"?
-
Not sure it makes sense to try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.
Because some believers do try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.
You're right, though. It should be just a matter of faith.
-
Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).
No. That was ignorance combined with fear.
Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.
They have believed in Jesus for 2000 years so he must be real.
They have believed in Ra for 8000 years so he must be even more real? No, wait, that isn't it either.
I don't think god fills a need for order and balance, I think god fills a need to keep one from acknowledging that bad things happen, and everybody dies.
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
-
No. That was ignorance combined with fear.
I also think evolution comes into play.
Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.
Me neither, but then again, that's not what I argued.
I don't think god fills a need for order and balance, I think god fills a need to keep one from acknowledging that bad things happen, and everybody dies.
Fine, but isn't believing that some things "just happen to be just like that on its own for no reason" just as extraordinary as the explanation "God did it"?
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.
-
Fine, but isn't believing that some things "just happen to be just like that on its own for no reason" just as extraordinary as the explanation "God did it"?
Absolutely not. One just is, the other requires the suspension of all logic and sense and to believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and has always been there and always will be and knows everything and can do everything and somehow still gives a shit about mundane details.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I am letting myself get sucked into this :)
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.
Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof.
The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof.
One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.
-
Occam's razor favors crank over coke because it lasts longer. Both, however, will rust the razor. :laugh:
:oneliner: :lol:
-
Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.
I know that. You asked me how it was more intuitive not how Occam's razor favors it. So I answered accordingly.
Ah, but I didn't consider the existence of a higher being the intuitive choice.
I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.
That's why I added the word "seemingly" there.
I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is.
Fair enough. Although I'm a bit surprised there because humans, apart from proper scientific knowledge, seem to naturally do the opposite of what you've done.
Which I don't understand. I would assume that there are things I don't know, but I wouldn't take the leap and assume that it's something supernatural, something that cannot be explained. Just that I can't explain it.
There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.
Ok, back to Occam's razor. Can't something happening for no reason be considered an assumption since it's not something we commonly observe in our daily world?
I should have added "no reason I know about". I'm pretty sure things happen for a reason (as in cause and effect), but I also realise I usually won't know why. I can observe my surroundings and create theories based on what I see as reasonable and observable, but there is no way I would *know*. God is a cop-out when you don't want to think for yourself.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here.
Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.
How did the start of the Big Bang happen then if it didn't "just happen"?
In our system, it never did. We can get infinitely close to creation but never all the way. :zoinks:
I would assume that something caused it, of course, but what that something is I don't know. What i don't do is to replace that something with "god" because that is an assumption I can't prove or observe.
-
Not sure it makes sense to try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.
Because some believers do try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.
You're right, though. It should be just a matter of faith.
Faith is what it is by definition. Logic and plausibility have no part in it, and I don't mean it in a negative way. It's just the way it is.
-
I remember watching Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and his comment was; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You can't prove or disprove "God". You either believe or you don't.
-
I remember watching Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and his comment was; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You can't prove or disprove "God". You either believe or you don't.
I reject the idea that god has to be disproven. You can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, that doesn't make it legitimate. If someone says they "believe" in something that can't be seen, and then want me to believe it also, the onus is on them to prove that this thing exists.
-
I remember watching Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and his comment was; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You can't prove or disprove "God". You either believe or you don't.
I reject the idea that god has to be disproven. You can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, that doesn't make it legitimate. If someone says they "believe" in something that can't be seen, and then want me to believe it also, the onus is on them to prove that this thing exists.
True, maybe I didn't word that right.
-
That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.
-
That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.
All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it :)
-
That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.
All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it :)
Exactly. Funny how some want to shove it down your throat, though.
-
That's the thing with beliefs. they are not supposed to be proven.
All I am saying is that if you can't prove your belief, don't ask me to share it :)
Exactly. Funny how some want to shove it down your throat, though.
QFT! :plus:
-
Fine, but isn't believing that some things "just happen to be just like that on its own for no reason" just as extraordinary as the explanation "God did it"?
Absolutely not. One just is, the other requires the suspension of all logic and sense and to believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and has always been there and always will be and knows everything and can do everything and somehow still gives a shit about mundane details.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I am letting myself get sucked into this :)
I am more talking about a hypothesized unknown sentient being with the potential powers to trigger the Big Bang and other cosmic one-time events rather than something specific such as the Christian god or whatever. And this is a debate. I'm not arguing for either side (even though I'm an agnostic deist who believes there's no evidence for God's existence). There is no need to think or imply I'm trying to troll in this thread.
You can continue discussing with us or you can stop. No need to feel offended or whatever it is you're feeling because of this.
That said, isn't something "just happening" a suspension of logic (and, therefore, not intuitive) in some way (even if it has been observed in the quantum world)?
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.
Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof.
The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof.
One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.
I can agree with that.
I just can't see what you and Odeon see - that God is not as intuitive as what science has revealed.
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.
Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof.
The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof.
One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.
I can agree with that.
I just can't see what you and Odeon see - that God is not as intuitive as what science has revealed.
Would have to say deism doen't really require the ignorance of facts or proof, thoug not sure about the word extraordinary.
-
Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.
I know that. You asked me how it was more intuitive not how Occam's razor favors it. So I answered accordingly.
Ah, but I didn't consider the existence of a higher being the intuitive choice.
I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.
That's why I added the word "seemingly" there.
I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is.
Fair enough. Although I'm a bit surprised there because humans, apart from proper scientific knowledge, seem to naturally do the opposite of what you've done.
Which I don't understand. I would assume that there are things I don't know, but I wouldn't take the leap and assume that it's something supernatural, something that cannot be explained. Just that I can't explain it.
There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.
Ok, back to Occam's razor. Can't something happening for no reason be considered an assumption since it's not something we commonly observe in our daily world?
I should have added "no reason I know about". I'm pretty sure things happen for a reason (as in cause and effect), but I also realise I usually won't know why. I can observe my surroundings and create theories based on what I see as reasonable and observable, but there is no way I would *know*. God is a cop-out when you don't want to think for yourself.
Just playing the Devil's advocate here.
Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.
How did the start of the Big Bang happen then if it didn't "just happen"?
In our system, it never did. We can get infinitely close to creation but never all the way. :zoinks:
I would assume that something caused it, of course, but what that something is I don't know. What i don't do is to replace that something with "god" because that is an assumption I can't prove or observe.
MLA can correct me if I'm misrepresenting him, but MLA seems to think that things can happen for no reason. But even if he doesn't, there are other atheists who do. I think even Stephen Hawking is one of them.
How is that not an assumption? And is it intuitive? Even more than the idea that there's some kind of sentient "Creator"?
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
Easy.
I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.
Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
Easy.
I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.
Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.
By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Agnostics not only accept the given, but also unable to hold either belief or disbelief. A deist has a belief.
-
OMG. Just thought of something.
Edit: Nevermind, turned out to be something else.
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
Easy.
I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.
Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.
By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Agnostics not only accept the given, but also unable to hold either belief or disbelief. A deist has a belief.
I believe but without certainty whether it's true or not. There are deists/theists who will use logic and reasoning to argue for God's existence. I'm not that confident.
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
Easy.
I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.
Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.
By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Agnostics not only accept the given, but also unable to hold either belief or disbelief. A deist has a belief.
I believe but without certainty whether it's true or not. There are deists/theists who will use logic and reasoning to argue for God's existence. I'm not that confident.
That makes sense. Thanks.
-
Ever met an atheist Christian or Christian atheist? ;)
-
Lol, how does that worship ritual go again?
-
Lol, how does that worship ritual go again?
There isn't any because they believe that either God doesn't exist or He did exist at one point but is now dead for good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism)
“every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God’s death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity”.
Interesting.
-
Lol, how does that worship ritual go again?
There isn't any because they believe that either God doesn't exist or He did exist at one point but is now dead for good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism)
“every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God’s death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity”.
Interesting.
It's like Nicheism.
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
With great difficulty. :orly:
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.
Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof.
The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof.
One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.
I can agree with that.
I just can't see what you and Odeon see - that God is not as intuitive as what science has revealed.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if something cannot be explained for the moment, it doesn't follow that there needs to be a higher being because it requires postulating something that you, by definition, cannot prove.
Comparing the two for intuitiveness is bound to fail because one will literally require a leap of faith while the other simply assumes that you don't *yet* know everything.
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.
Etc.
If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.
-
Is this just a rehash of the other thread?
No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.
Science is extraordinary, but also backed in facts and observable proof.
The idea of a god is extraordinary, and requires you to ignore facts and observable proof.
One has sense, the other nothing but emotion and wild hopes.
I can agree with that.
I just can't see what you and Odeon see - that God is not as intuitive as what science has revealed.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if something cannot be explained for the moment, it doesn't follow that there needs to be a higher being because it requires postulating something that you, by definition, cannot prove.
Comparing the two for intuitiveness is bound to fail because one will literally require a leap of faith while the other simply assumes that you don't *yet* know everything.
Odeon, I think we're both agreeing on the basics but not understanding each other's points properly.
You're right. Arguing for intuition doesn't mean a thing when it comes to finding out the truth. My whole point from this thread was to sort of understand why it's so easy for many people (whether religious or not) to come to the conclusion that there must be a God. So I started this thread with the question about Occam's razor then realized it should be more about intuition.
Then realized I'm just confusing the shit out of myself.
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.
Etc.
If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.
Fine. I do think they should keep verifying this through repetitive methods and in other countries.
The capitalisation of God argument is a poor one in my opinion, though. Because even atheists are used to referring to the concept of the Creator as God (capital G).
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.
Etc.
If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.
Fine. I do think they should keep verifying this through repetitive methods and in other countries.
The capitalisation of God argument is a poor one in my opinion, though. Because even atheists are used to referring to the concept of the Creator as God (capital G).
They are less likely to do so, but my main point is that if you choose to do that in a study related to god, it either shows bias or ignorance. Both undermine the study itself.
-
How is one an agnostic diest?
With great difficulty. :orly:
It was a good explaination. Would think of it as a soft deism myself, but the use of the terms together is acceptable when put that way.
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.
Etc.
If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.
Fine. I do think they should keep verifying this through repetitive methods and in other countries.
The capitalisation of God argument is a poor one in my opinion, though. Because even atheists are used to referring to the concept of the Creator as God (capital G).
They are less likely to do so, but my main point is that if you choose to do that in a study related to god, it either shows bias or ignorance. Both undermine the study itself.
Sounds like false dichotomy to me.
If it's related to the concept of the hypothesized Creator of all, then I don't see why it shouldn't be God with a capital G even in a professional psychology study. It's really a universally arbitrary thing at the end: God for the Creator and/or the Supreme Being and god(s) for the minor ones (irrelevant to this topic).
Your conditions are just your own anyway.
Now whether the conclusion of that study is valid or not will have to be verified with further experiments with different samples under different circumstances and in different environments. But I don't believe one second there's bias going on there. Especially that it explains why so many people who don't follow any religion still believe in God.
If it's not simply intuition (as it has been in my case), then what is it? Ignorance and fear (as MLA suggested)? Nah, that's shallow closed-minded thinking.
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
Someone did a "study" on "intuition" and "god"? :lolwat:
-
Intuitive thinking means going with one’s first instinct and reaching decisions quickly based on automatic cognitive processes. Reflective thinking involves the questioning of first instinct and consideration of other possibilities, thus allowing for counterintuitive decisions.
How is this saying anything other than "people who don't tend to think things through have a higher tendency to believe in a god"?
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
Someone did a "study" on "intuition" and "god"? :lolwat:
Well, you have Harvard Uni researchers, a study published in one of the top psychology journals, a pretty interesting and significant subject for the study of the human mind with relation to the concept of God.
Not sure why you would want to make fun of such a study. That's what psychology studies are basically all about. Studying the human mind.
-
Intuitive thinking means going with one’s first instinct and reaching decisions quickly based on automatic cognitive processes. Reflective thinking involves the questioning of first instinct and consideration of other possibilities, thus allowing for counterintuitive decisions.
How is this saying anything other than "people who don't tend to think things through have a higher tendency to believe in a god"?
You can express this in such a politically incorrect manner as your view and opinion. No one's stopping you.
But I would not agree with you that people who rely on intuition for anything isn't thinking things through. He's just approaching things from a different angle than how someone relying on reflection would.
Without going into the middle ground stuff, and generally speaking, the believer believes in God because he thought it through with his intuition. The unbeliever discards his intuition and concludes that he doesn't have any reason to believe God exists and so he thought it through by using reflection.
Obviously, reflection gives more valid answers than intuition as science has shown, but this does not change one bit what intuition favors.
-
Obviously, reflection gives more valid answers than intuition as science has shown, but this does not change one bit what intuition favors.
True, but when I was drawn into this conversation that wasn't what the question was. You changed the title of your post 3 pages in, and in doing so tried to change the direction of the discussion.
-
Obviously, reflection gives more valid answers than intuition as science has shown, but this does not change one bit what intuition favors.
True, but when I was drawn into this conversation that wasn't what the question was. You changed the title of your post 3 pages in, and in doing so tried to change the direction of the discussion.
Actually, I didn't try. It just happened. So I changed the title to fit the actual discussion. You reversed both the cause and effect.
-
Obviously, reflection gives more valid answers than intuition as science has shown, but this does not change one bit what intuition favors.
True, but when I was drawn into this conversation that wasn't what the question was. You changed the title of your post 3 pages in, and in doing so tried to change the direction of the discussion.
Actually, I didn't try. It just happened. So I changed the title to fit the actual discussion. You reversed both the cause and effect.
(emo)
-
Without going into the middle ground stuff, and generally speaking, the believer believes in God because he thought it through with his intuition. The unbeliever discards his intuition and concludes that he doesn't have any reason to believe God exists and so he thought it through by using reflection.
My intuition does not tell me that there is a god.
While the idea of the whole universe being created from one super dense particle seems hard to believe, to me it seems so much more likely than a super-being mysteriously coming into existence and choosing to create everything.
-
Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).
No. That was ignorance combined with fear.
Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.
They have believed in Jesus for 2000 years so he must be real.
They have believed in Ra for 8000 years so he must be even more real? No, wait, that isn't it either.
I don't think god fills a need for order and balance, I think god fills a need to keep one from acknowledging that bad things happen, and everybody dies.
I think that the simplest explanation is that there is no god, or a deux ex machina type wind-up-toy explanation.
The reasons that MLA gave, to me, explain why people ATTRIBUTE meaning to meaningless events, to comfort themselves. No one wants to feel alone and that nothing matters.
So the simplest thing to explain the fear of being alone might be to invent religion, but not to "prove" gods existence
-
Is Cavalera a Christian? :orly:
-
I think he is an Ex Christian. I might be wrong.
-
I think he is an Ex Christian. I might be wrong.
He answered a few pages back:
How is one an agnostic diest?
Easy.
I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.
Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.
I have no idea what that means, but it is an answer.
He doesn't know if a Creator exists, but he believes in an impersonal creator. My brain throws up error messages when I read that, but it does the same for all religion :)
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
-
I only have superficial knowledge of deism. I was under the impression that that is the belief that there is an "unpersonal creator", so to speak, and it wound the universe up and left it to create itself. This personal creator either doesnt care about us anymore, or is dead.
-
I only have superficial knowledge of deism. I was under the impression that that is the belief that there is an "unpersonal creator", so to speak, and it wound the universe up and left it to create itself. This personal creator either doesnt care about us anymore, or is dead.
But in order to believe either, you first have to actually believe in a creator, right?
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.
Etc.
If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.
Fine. I do think they should keep verifying this through repetitive methods and in other countries.
The capitalisation of God argument is a poor one in my opinion, though. Because even atheists are used to referring to the concept of the Creator as God (capital G).
They are less likely to do so, but my main point is that if you choose to do that in a study related to god, it either shows bias or ignorance. Both undermine the study itself.
Sounds like false dichotomy to me.
If it's related to the concept of the hypothesized Creator of all, then I don't see why it shouldn't be God with a capital G even in a professional psychology study. It's really a universally arbitrary thing at the end: God for the Creator and/or the Supreme Being and god(s) for the minor ones (irrelevant to this topic).
Because if you've done the same in your forms, you've already taken a stance. Because it shows where you come from. *Especially* in this sort of thing you should try to be careful to remain neutral.
Your conditions are just your own anyway.
Nope, I really don't think so. Ask an atheist if a generic description for a higher being should be capitalised and I bet you'll get a different answer.
Can't you see the problem? It shows what *you* think and it subtly leads the way. Actually not so subtly but I'm trying to be gentle here.
Now whether the conclusion of that study is valid or not will have to be verified with further experiments with different samples under different circumstances and in different environments. But I don't believe one second there's bias going on there. Especially that it explains why so many people who don't follow any religion still believe in God.
We'll have to differ on this one. I read a lot of bias into it. If that bias is fully conscious I can't say, but they are not neutral.
If it's not simply intuition (as it has been in my case), then what is it? Ignorance and fear (as MLA suggested)? Nah, that's shallow closed-minded thinking.
Shallow-minded thinking to take that leap of faith? I'd say quite the opposite.
-
Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.
In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)
Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part. Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.
-
I found this study interesting:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx)
Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.
Someone did a "study" on "intuition" and "god"? :lolwat:
Well, you have Harvard Uni researchers, a study published in one of the top psychology journals, a pretty interesting and significant subject for the study of the human mind with relation to the concept of God.
Not sure why you would want to make fun of such a study. That's what psychology studies are basically all about. Studying the human mind.
Credibility is not just in a name or a place. Remember that Dr Wakefield's mercury-as-cause-of-autism paper appeared in the Lancet but in spite of peer reviews, a respected journal and a ditto scientist (at that point), the study turned out to have about as much credibility as L Ron Hubbard.
-
But I would not agree with you that people who rely on intuition for anything isn't thinking things through. He's just approaching things from a different angle than how someone relying on reflection would.
Assuming that the "intuition" in question works. Would it work the same for any kind of problem?
Without going into the middle ground stuff, and generally speaking, the believer believes in God because he thought it through with his intuition. The unbeliever discards his intuition and concludes that he doesn't have any reason to believe God exists and so he thought it through by using reflection.
You're saying that an unbeliever would have to discard his intuition and use his rationality to arrive at that conclusion?
My intuition says "bullshit". My rational mind says that you are assuming several steps here.
Obviously, reflection gives more valid answers than intuition as science has shown, but this does not change one bit what intuition favors.
According to the study, which you seem to favour and I don't.
Around 90% of the Americans believe in a god, generally speaking. This would mean that 10% do not, simply put, so it follows that fewer than 90 people in the study were non-believers, a far too small number to draw any conclusions from, even without a more neutral study.
-
"intuition" is just as hard-coded into our system as anything else. the only reason we call it "intuition" and not "instinct" is that "im no goddamn monkey!" and all that.
theres nothing special about the way humans think, or experience their surroundings. our imagination isnt unique (animals are capable of complex imagination, in order to hunt and survive) and our emotions are also just human versions of whats seen out in the wild, joy (yay food!) fear (oh no, tiger!) sorrow (aw shucks, we lost a pack member) reactions seen in other fairly complex beings in the wild.
there never was a "red line" to separate humans from the rest of animals. the whole bag of human grey-zones (neanderthals, homo erectus, australopithecines, etc) show that even better.
if _humans_ _first_ thought of deities: "huh! there must be something!"
how come there was absolutely NO sign from this deity before (or after, for that matter ::)) that point in time?
from a purely logical, and faith-less point of view: there cannot be deities. there simply is no room for such a possibility.
-
Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.
In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)
Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part. Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.
Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college. 8)
-
Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.
In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)
Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part. Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.
Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college. 8)
It's fun, but the only thing you can do with an undergraduate degree in philosophy is apply for a graduate program in philosophy. The only thing you can do with a graduate degree in philosophy is teach philosophy.
-
From what I understand, ancient people's developed the concept of God's to explain natural phenomena that could not be explained otherwise in the limited knowledge of those times. Volcanoes--Vulcan, etc, lightning--Zeus, Thor, etc. Earthquakes--Poseidon, and on and on it goes.
That is simplistic, I know, but, it seems one thing led to another with the rise of priests/priestesses, shamans, etc. The ancient gods reflected nature, random, cruel, beneficial, powerful, devastating, life giving, etc.
-
And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.
-
Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.
In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)
Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part. Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.
Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college. 8)
It's fun, but the only thing you can do with an undergraduate degree in philosophy is apply for a graduate program in philosophy. The only thing you can do with a graduate degree in philosophy is teach philosophy.
I may take a minor in it. The medical field still looms as the best bet for me. But, the medical field also incorporates a lot of philosophy as well. It might come in handy in dealing with people in crisis interventions. In this day and age of cross cultural blending, I'm coming into contact with many different faiths in my job.
-
Would theology be a better course for your purposes?
-
And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.
The rise of a ruling class as people settled into permanent places would dovetail with the rise of a priestly class to justify and reinforce the rulers.
-
Would theology be a better course for your purposes?
It might, I need to explore the options further!
-
And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.
The rise of a ruling class as people settled into permanent places would dovetail with the rise of a priestly class to justify and reinforce the rulers.
It is quite a coincidence, isn't it? :zoinks:
-
Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.
In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)
Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part. Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.
Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college. 8)
It's fun, but the only thing you can do with an undergraduate degree in philosophy is apply for a graduate program in philosophy. The only thing you can do with a graduate degree in philosophy is teach philosophy.
I have a BA in Philosophy from a very good school. It's pretty worthless, but it always looks good to employers to have a degree in *something*
In the future I will get a gradate degree, but I dont think I want to teach. I'll probably still be doing skilled labor.
-
And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.
The rise of a ruling class as people settled into permanent places would dovetail with the rise of a priestly class to justify and reinforce the rulers.
It is quite a coincidence, isn't it? :zoinks:
I thought you understood. The reason they are the ruling class is because the god agrees with them and wanted them to be that way. Same way we get presidents in the US.
-
Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.
In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)
Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part. Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.
Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college. 8)
It's fun, but the only thing you can do with an undergraduate degree in philosophy is apply for a graduate program in philosophy. The only thing you can do with a graduate degree in philosophy is teach philosophy.
I have a BA in Philosophy from a very good school. It's pretty worthless, but it always looks good to employers to have a degree in *something*
In the future I will get a gradate degree, but I dont think I want to teach. I'll probably still be doing skilled labor.
My degree in English Lit is almost as worthless, except that Law Schools are prizing them these days.
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
You might be surprised by the number of non believers who find religion and interesting study.
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
You might be surprised by the number of non believers who find religion and interesting study.
That's true. Though I think that you can't ever be hardcore about something, especially if you were raised to be that way, without it having affected you to the point that you are influenced by the belief whether consciously or not.
My wife was raised Catholic, and still calls herself Catholic despite the fact that she is anything but Catholic. She doesn't believe in any of the dogma when discussing it logically, but there is a certain foundation that was laid when she was young that can''t be overcome regardless. This is why religion starts them young.
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
You might be surprised by the number of non believers who find religion and interesting study.
The funny thing is that we weren't even discussing Christianity here.
And to those still confused about the term "agnostic deist", think of this way. I believe because I choose to believe (therefore, without certainty) because, to me, it looks reasonable ... not because I'm strictly and purely led by logic and reasoning to do so (which implies certainty of faith).
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
You might be surprised by the number of non believers who find religion and interesting study.
That's true. Though I think that you can't ever be hardcore about something, especially if you were raised to be that way, without it having affected you to the point that you are influenced by the belief whether consciously or not.
My wife was raised Catholic, and still calls herself Catholic despite the fact that she is anything but Catholic. She doesn't believe in any of the dogma when discussing it logically, but there is a certain foundation that was laid when she was young that can''t be overcome regardless. This is why religion starts them young.
Never had the imprinting in youth; and a small amount of exposure in teens through friends and from books sought from personal interest. Not much of a study on religion as a whole but really do like the bible; though also like shakespeare for much the same reason.
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
You might be surprised by the number of non believers who find religion and interesting study.
That's true. Though I think that you can't ever be hardcore about something, especially if you were raised to be that way, without it having affected you to the point that you are influenced by the belief whether consciously or not.
My wife was raised Catholic, and still calls herself Catholic despite the fact that she is anything but Catholic. She doesn't believe in any of the dogma when discussing it logically, but there is a certain foundation that was laid when she was young that can''t be overcome regardless. This is why religion starts them young.
That's the same situation as most of my friends. They were brought up "Catholic," and went to Catholic school. Only a few would call themselves atheist, but I don't think any of them really believe in God, and none of them follow Catholic doctrine.
-
Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.
You might be surprised by the number of non believers who find religion and interesting study.
That's true. Though I think that you can't ever be hardcore about something, especially if you were raised to be that way, without it having affected you to the point that you are influenced by the belief whether consciously or not.
My wife was raised Catholic, and still calls herself Catholic despite the fact that she is anything but Catholic. She doesn't believe in any of the dogma when discussing it logically, but there is a certain foundation that was laid when she was young that can''t be overcome regardless. This is why religion starts them young.
That's the same situation as most of my friends. They were brought up "Catholic," and went to Catholic school. Only a few would call themselves atheist, but I don't think any of them really believe in God, and none of them follow Catholic doctrine.
Most people raised in even a moderately religious family with no actual devotion to the concerned religion are like that. It's not easy to just blurt out "I'm an atheist" to the loved ones in such scenarios.
-
My degree in English Lit is almost as worthless, except that Law Schools are prizing them these days.
Why is that?
-
And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.
The rise of a ruling class as people settled into permanent places would dovetail with the rise of a priestly class to justify and reinforce the rulers.
It is quite a coincidence, isn't it? :zoinks:
I thought you understood. The reason they are the ruling class is because the god agrees with them and wanted them to be that way. Same way we get presidents in the US.
This is going to a very interesting election year. :autism:
-
My degree in English Lit is almost as worthless, except that Law Schools are prizing them these days.
Why is that?
They used to focus on crops of people with political science degrees but the data shows that English Lit students tend to have better outcomes.
-
And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.
The rise of a ruling class as people settled into permanent places would dovetail with the rise of a priestly class to justify and reinforce the rulers.
It is quite a coincidence, isn't it? :zoinks:
I thought you understood. The reason they are the ruling class is because the god agrees with them and wanted them to be that way. Same way we get presidents in the US.
Oh, right. I wish god would agree with me every once in a while.
-
My degree in English Lit is almost as worthless, except that Law Schools are prizing them these days.
Lit is Swedish. :oneliner:
-
My degree in English Lit is almost as worthless, except that Law Schools are prizing them these days.
Why is that?
Before I decided to major in philosophy I went to a different school and majored in paralegal for 2 semesters. In the US, everything in court that is decided becomes law. So, this memorandum needs to be perfectly factual and full of references and citing past cases. Looking up the facts is left to the slaves; the paralegals. The lawyers job is to write a passionate, nearly slanderous case full of wit and rhetoric. This is why they should have good English skills.
The memorandums I would have to write for my law classes were always heavily scrutinized. It was more than grammar, it was also very critical of passiveness and expected high drama. I found my professors really nitpicked at my memorandums. It was usually not incorrect, the problem seemed to be that I did not word things as they liked. In other words I was not aggressive enough. It's not the only reason I changed my major, though. Law is incredibly boring.
-
Um, my intuition tells me that not god created man in his own image but man created god in his own. :santa:
-
If it's intuition, it's intuition. Just make sure you guys are not confusing reflection for intuition. That's all.
-
Ass pies are known for their intuition. :toporly:
-
If it's intuition, it's intuition. Just make sure you guys are not confusing reflection for intuition. That's all.
Narcissus was all about reflection IIRC. :laugh:
-
pfft! this is a boring discussion so far.
Ultimately, the question is wrong.
If we are to assume that the answer is yes, then all that means is that human intuition can't be trusted.
And as to Occam's Razor, yes, the idea of god violates that principle.
-
pfft! this is a boring discussion so far.
Ultimately, the question is wrong.
If we are to assume that the answer is yes, then all that means is that human intuition can't be trusted.
And as to Occam's Razor, yes, the idea of god violates that principle.
But so does the "something happened for no reason" explanation. Odeon's explanation is the simplest. The explanation "we don't know what's the cause yet" is simpler and more objective than "it just happened".
-
pfft! this is a boring discussion so far.
Ultimately, the question is wrong.
If we are to assume that the answer is yes, then all that means is that human intuition can't be trusted.
And as to Occam's Razor, yes, the idea of god violates that principle.
But so does the "something happened for no reason" explanation. Odeon's explanation is the simplest. The explanation "we don't know what's the cause yet" is simpler and more objective than "it just happened".
Occam's razor doesn't depend on being the most simple, it is simply used to help eliminate unnecessary multipliers.
The examples you gave aren't the equivalent of "god did it" . "God did it", in turn, needs an explanation, "it just happened: doesn't.
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
-
The real problem is that the question shifts from the origin of the universe to god's origin. Which then ends up becoming, "He just exists for all eternity."
Occam's Razor would suggest that well, why need the assumption of god then if god's origin is an elaboration of "It just exists"; when you can simply say, "It just happened"?
-
I see double standard in your post.
If you really think it through, you shouldn't.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
No, you just inserted that assumption on your own. God could have millions of definitions.
If, however, you insist on using that definition, then "it just happened" and "god (who just is and just does) did it" are essentially the same argument.
Both are bare assertion fallacies of logic.
-
Both are bare assertion fallacies of logic.
That's the point, mate.
-
George Carlin - Religion is bullshit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o#)
-
"It just happened" is a poor explanation. It actually requires more explanation than "we don't know the reason yet".
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
-
Both are bare assertion fallacies of logic.
That's the point, mate.
Yes, but one is a viloation of Occam's razor and one isn't because initially, god is undefined. Having to then explain god is when the violation occurs.
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.
What do you believe God is?
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.
What do you believe God is?
If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.
If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.
What do you believe God is?
If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.
If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.
So you believe that he's a concious being?
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.
What do you believe God is?
If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.
If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.
So you believe that he's a concious being?
Yes, God is a sentient being to me.
-
I see double standard in your post.
If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.
You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.
This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.
I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap". Does that make sense to you?
But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.
What do you believe God is?
If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.
If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.
So you believe that he's a concious being?
Yes, God is a sentient being to me.
That you don't know if you believe in. He has a lot of defined characteristics for something you are on the fence about.
-
You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.
A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?
Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?
-
That you don't know if you believe in. He has a lot of defined characteristics for something you are on the fence about.
Never said I don't know if I believe in God. I don't know if what I believe in exists is what my claim was.
-
You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.
It's ok. There's no prerequisite course to understand deism anyway.
A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?
My evidence (although very weak) is intuition and that it's a better explanation to me thus far for the existence of the universe than "it just happened".
Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?
Because it makes better sense to me for sentience to bring forth what's not sentient than to say that the universe just came into existence from basically nothing.
And I don't believe God was created.
-
I don't know if what I believe in exists
This reminds me of the point I made of everyone. Maybe better said as you don't claim to know. That's pretty freaking agnostic. Deist.
-
You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.
It's ok. There's no prerequisite course to understand deism anyway.
A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?
My evidence (although very weak) is intuition and that it's a better explanation to me thus far for the existence of the universe than "it just happened".
Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?
Because it makes better sense to me for sentience to bring forth what's not sentient than to say that the universe just came into existence from basically nothing.
And I don't believe God was created.
I have to admit, I've always at the back of my mind, had a funny thought that we are all in a giant super advanced computer, and "God" is some fat spotty dude playing a super advanced game of "The Sims" :LOL:
And, before anyone dogpiles me. It's not a genuine belief :P Although I have never been able to totally disprove it to myself.
-
I don't know if what I believe in exists
This reminds me of the point I made of everyone. Maybe better said as you don't claim to know. That's pretty freaking agnostic. Deist.
Was that you swearing just there? :P
By the way, I can know that I and others exist because we have strong evidence that shows us we do. Can't say the same for God.
-
You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.
It's ok. There's no prerequisite course to understand deism anyway.
A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?
My evidence (although very weak) is intuition and that it's a better explanation to me thus far for the existence of the universe than "it just happened".
Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?
Because it makes better sense to me for sentience to bring forth what's not sentient than to say that the universe just came into existence from basically nothing.
And I don't believe God was created.
I have to admit, I've always at the back of my mind, had a funny thought that we are all in a giant super advanced computer, and "God" is some fat spotty dude playing a super advanced game of "The Sims" :LOL:
Ever reached the ending of The Simpsons Game? You get to play Dance Dance Revolution with God. 8)
And, before anyone dogpiles me. It's not a genuine belief :P Although I have never been able to totally disprove it to myself.
Well, I'm going to go the other side for a jiffy and tell you that you can't disprove the existence of an invisible ghost living in your toilet. Doesn't mean it's reasonable.
I don't believe God is limited in form and, thus, is some fat spotty dude with a longass beard or something. He'd have to be this supercosmic form of infinite power that brought forth the cosmic reality we happen to be in.
And while the evidence is pretty much weak for such an entity, it is still better (in my perception) than the evidence for the magical teapot orbiting Saturn or some other planet and for the limited-in-form spaghetti monster and for some limited being playing a cosmic video game with us as characters for him to play.
-
I don't know if what I believe in exists
This reminds me of the point I made of everyone. Maybe better said as you don't claim to know. That's pretty freaking agnostic. Deist.
Was that you swearing just there? :P
By the way, I can know that I and others exist because we have strong evidence that shows us we do. Can't say the same for God.
And can't know god knows I exist.
-
He may be retarded, who knows.
-
You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.
It's ok. There's no prerequisite course to understand deism anyway.
A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?
My evidence (although very weak) is intuition and that it's a better explanation to me thus far for the existence of the universe than "it just happened".
Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?
Because it makes better sense to me for sentience to bring forth what's not sentient than to say that the universe just came into existence from basically nothing.
And I don't believe God was created.
I have to admit, I've always at the back of my mind, had a funny thought that we are all in a giant super advanced computer, and "God" is some fat spotty dude playing a super advanced game of "The Sims" :LOL:
And, before anyone dogpiles me. It's not a genuine belief :P Although I have never been able to totally disprove it to myself.
I've actually had that same thought myself. :lol:
-
My stance: god only exists in the eye of the beholder. I have little doubt that man created him. It's a damn illusion, if you'd ask me. A delusion folks hold on to. Anno 2011?
A goddamn shame, I say.
-
A goddamn shame, I say.
But you don't believe in God, so how do you know God damns?
-
Duh.. it was just an expression. Think it's a shame folks believe in.. ja, the delusion 'tagged' god.
Well, I accept that I'll never know how this magnificent universe came to being. Que sais je? Will never know 'things' beyond my death.. and I'm highly skeptic about claims of others in these matters.
(started writing a bit more about 'my view' concerning religion but need to nuance more.. maybe later I'll post a bit more about it)
-
Duh.. it was just an expression. Think it's a shame folks believe in.. ja, the delusion 'tagged' god.
Well, I accept that I'll never know how this magnificent universe came to being. Que sais je? Will never know 'things' beyond my death.. and I'm highly skeptic about claims of others in these matters.
(started writing a bit more about 'my view' concerning religion but need to nuance more.. maybe later I'll post a bit more about it)
Right, but not sure why you're upset about this.
My belief neither affects my lifestyle nor does it affect yours. Nor am I being dogmatic about it that you need to feel offense at what I choose to believe.
-
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John,
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.
-
You bet I believe in me. I believe I can fly and shoot fireballs. I believe I can even create multiverses out of pure nothing.
In fact, the whole God concept I've been mentioning here is simply a description of me, and no one external to my being. There you have it, folks. The invisible man really does exist. It's just not how you guys have imagined. 8)
-
@ MC.. No, no.. I'm not upset at all. Don't understand why you say so really.
You not being dogmatic is noticeable and.. good. Well, I'm chill and have not so much to prove really either.
-
I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?
-
I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?
Easy. Just as there are atheists who do, there are theists/deists who do. Doesn't mean that every atheist/theist/deist does it.
-
I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?
I've had that same problem. Never understood it either. What people believe in is their own business unless they try to change my beliefs.
-
I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?
Easy. Just as there are atheists who do, there are theists/deists who do. Doesn't mean that every atheist/theist/deist does it.
Did I say "every"? That sounds like a strawman argument there :autism:
-
I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?
Easy. Just as there are atheists who do, there are theists/deists who do. Doesn't mean that every atheist/theist/deist does it.
Did I say "every"? That sounds like a strawman argument there :autism:
Erm, almost. "The people who believe" does seem to refer to everyone believing.
-
I have never felt the need to convince others that god does not exist, yet the people who do believe think it is vitally important that I do to. Why is that?
Easy. Just as there are atheists who do, there are theists/deists who do. Doesn't mean that every atheist/theist/deist does it.
Did I say "every"? That sounds like a strawman argument there :autism:
Erm, almost. "The people who believe" does seem to refer to everyone believing.
I said the people who believe think, not the people who believe do :)
-
:tard:
I have trouble seeing that statement as anything else.
-
:tard:
I have trouble seeing that statement as anything else.
I guess you have to make an assumption as to what he meant by "does it". I never said anyone "did" anything, I said they thought something.
Am I running off into semantics? Probably.
-
"The people who do believe" sounds like the entire group, though.
I love semantics.
-
"The people who do believe" sounds like the entire group, though.
I love semantics.
Me too. I am retaking the LSAT in December. If I score as well as I did 7 years ago I am applying to a new private law school that is opening in my city this year. What has prevented me up to this point is the nearest one is 300 miles away from the source of my income. I had gauranteed admission to that one as they had never rejected an applicant with my LSAT scores and GPA, I only hope this new one has similar admissions guidelines.
Arguing language all day for money is like a dream :zoinks:
Of course, that makes my MBA classes worthless, but at least I have that to fall back on if I don't get in.
-
Good luck with it.
I sort of work with semantics for a living. If I could start all over, I'd study languages and do that, but now, markup languages ave to do.
-
No, quite the opposite.
-
Define intuition.
-
Not sure why Calavera changed the title of this thread. It makes for an interesting question. Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
-
Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
For most of the time that humans have existed, there have been no rational scientific explanations for many things. It was natural to see conscious intent and great power behind things like the sun, the wind, life itself, and so on.
"The unknowable" is shrinking as science advances. God Of The Gaps is finding less gaps on which to stake his claim for existence. Is it ignorance or intuition that favours belief in God?
-
^ and just what rock did you crawl out from under??
-
Not sure why Calavera changed the title of this thread. It makes for an interesting question. Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
Define intuition.
-
^ and just what rock did you crawl out from under??
Thanks for the friendly welcome dude. :santa:
-
No, welcoming you is a fairly formal thing that must be accomplished.
:poop:
Welcoming willl be up to others.
-
Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
For most of the time that humans have existed, there have been no rational scientific explanations for many things. It was natural to see conscious intent and great power behind things like the sun, the wind, life itself, and so on.
"The unknowable" is shrinking as science advances. God Of The Gaps is finding less gaps on which to stake his claim for existence. Is it ignorance or intuition that favours belief in God?
Welcome back. Am thinking the unknowable is still much the same as it's always been. perhaps a better way to have put it would have been, intuition favors belief, rather than existence, agreed.
-
Not sure why Calavera changed the title of this thread. It makes for an interesting question. Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
Define intuition.
It already has a definition.
-
Intuition favors god's existence the way Adam and Eve favor it.
-
Not sure why Calavera changed the title of this thread. It makes for an interesting question. Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
Define intuition.
It already has a definition.
It's not intuition you're talking about, it's fear.
-
Not sure why Calavera changed the title of this thread. It makes for an interesting question. Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
Define intuition.
It already has a definition.
It's not intuition you're talking about, it's fear.
Jack sighs and copy/pastes the definition.
in·tu·i·tion
/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
noun: intuition
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness; More
sixth sense, clairvoyance, second sight
•a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
-
Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
For most of the time that humans have existed, there have been no rational scientific explanations for many things. It was natural to see conscious intent and great power behind things like the sun, the wind, life itself, and so on.
"The unknowable" is shrinking as science advances. God Of The Gaps is finding less gaps on which to stake his claim for existence. Is it ignorance or intuition that favours belief in God?
Welcome back. Am thinking the unknowable is still much the same as it's always been. perhaps a better way to have put it would have been, intuition favors belief, rather than existence, agreed.
Thanks Jack.
Norse people heard thunder and intuition told them that it was caused by a supernatural person, a God, with a very big hammer. Nowadays we don't believe in Thor because we know what really causes thunder.
Several ancient cultures worshipped the Sun, it brought life and it moved across the sky all by itself. Intuitively they assigned Godliness to the Sun. The ancient Egyptians even believed that a great dung beetle pushed it across the sky. Now we know what the Sun is and why it generates light and heat, and we also know that it doesn't really move across the sky every day. We don't tend to worship the Sun any more.
I totally agree with you though. Intuition does favour belief in Gods, and more recently the major belief systems have modified that to a belief in a single God. That doesn't make it true, actually based on man's history of making Gods up to explain things that we couldn't understand I'd say that the opposite is true.
-
Yes, intuition is emotional and without reason, and do believe people intuitively have the sense or feeling of there being, something, something out there, greater than the self or anything else. This discussion is bringing to mind a parallel to my points in the recent discussion of will, and how people's own self-awareness causes an intuitive sense of a transcendent self, beyond the limitations of one's own biological matter. It seems very much the same to me.
-
What happens next is people redefine things, and redefinitions are frustratingly common.
So, if you ask most people, "intuition" is the same as "instinct" (although it isn't), so it becomes automatically legitimized.
In fact, the nature of word definitions itself confuses many. I had a long lasting argument with my friend, wether or not a movie-character was "a sociopath or a psychopath", I kept trying to explain to him that he got it all wrong, first of all, there was very little of actual medical observation in his statements, mostly just musings of his own, and secondly, he did not comprehend what I meant, when I said that these words are human inventions, and one word has replaced the other.
He kept arguing back to me that that might very well be my "opinion" but that his "opinion" was that sociopathy and psychopathy were two distinct conditions. He then went on to list symptoms:
For "sociopath" he correctly listed typical sociopathic tendencies and symptoms.
For "psychopath" he listed, almost perfectly, the symptoms of PTSD.
To which I spent the next arguments trying to explain how words come to exist, especially medical/science words.
I had a similar discussion about dinosaurs, where he was convinced all dinosaurs had the species-name "rex", obviously something he overheard and misunderstood from a docu, and I had to explain, from zero, HOW a dinosaur name even comes to exist. There is like this unexplored assumption that a dinosaur fossil is dug out, allready with a nametag "Hi", and a failure to ever consider for a moment that, hey, names are GIVEN to the bone, and attached a definition: Why is this thing named this and not that? Well because: *list of features*
The same goes for medical terms
And finally for every-day words.
I am free to call a dog a cat, but I must then be prepared to confuse a lot of people.
-
Always understood the only meaningful distinction between the two, is psychopaths are born and sociopaths are raised. There's also a bit of argument within the mental health field over the discontinuation of the use of the terms. because while criminality is included in the criteria for ASPD, it isn't a requirement; so one could argue that while all psychopaths and sociopaths have ASPD, not everyone with ASPD is a psychopath or sociopath, and the element of criminality is the defining difference.
-
Always understood the only meaningful distinction between the two, is psychopaths are born and sociopaths are raised. There's also a bit of argument within the mental health field over the discontinuation of the use of the terms. because while criminality is included in the criteria for ASPD, it isn't a requirement; so one could argue that while all psychopaths and sociopaths have ASPD, not everyone with ASPD is a psychopath or sociopath, and the element of criminality is the defining difference.
In Norwegian, I have always heard that the two terms are completely synonymous, reflected also by the fact that the Norwegian wiki redirects the terms to one and the same page.
If criminality is the defining difference, would that then mean that the difference between the conditions is determined by the laws of a country? :0
Either way, mostly pointing out the very unexplored understanding of a definition, that most people have. I dunno how to explain it. Most people seem to assume all concepts exist with a word attached from forever.
Something as trivial as a scientist naming a dinosaur. My friend thought of it as if there was some high, mighty, un-humorous authority, granting names to fossils from even before their discovery, not thinking of it in detail, rather never having given it any thought at all, and when pressured to, finding it very difficult to imagine.
For example - as an individual, according to ICZN rules and biological tradition, I am completely free to "lump" Albertosaurus into Gorgosaurus, and say they are the same.
My friend was almost offended by this, how can I possibly do that??? The _SCIENTISTS_ have found out that the dinosaurs were called so and so, I guess the scientists found the names inscripted in the fossil, and who am I to argue?
I then tried to explain that - this is how it works:
Species names represent, well, the species. If I am to fuck around w species names, I need to take measurements, careful study of the fossil, and create a list of my arguments - taking the features allready listed to define the species, and comparing the features to another species, making my argument. If my argument holds, and everyone's convinced, then the new species name will become the norm.
Genus names are much easyer, since they are not bound as hard to evidence. "Splitting" and "Lumping" is so common, almost every published dinosaur book has a few re-definitions of dinosaurs here and there, Tarbosaurus bataar is often accepted to be Tyrannosaurus bataar, since Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are close to identical, but named differently for sentimental and national-pride reasons (Tarbosaurus was found in Asia, mainly China, Mongolia and USSR, in the Cold War, so, something as lame as this contributed to this almost-identical-to-Tyrannosaurus recieving a distinct name).
Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus are also close to identical, only details separating them. It is quite clear they are two different species: libratus and sarcophabus. But it is up to each individual reader to accept or not that they are two different genera - so, it is completely free and open for me to synonymize them. Then, _according to the rules_ the oldest name will have priority, rendering them both to: Gorgosaurus libratus, and Gorgosaurus sarcophagus.
My friend disagreed. And added that according to the docu, they were all called "rex"
This all becomes even more boggled, since my friend is assuming that I am doing what HE is doing: just musing, just contemplating, just guessing what is more logical. "It's not logical to just change dinosaur names at will!"
And all he has to do is excamine the topic. And there it is. Yes. You can change dinosaur names at will - to a limit. You cannot re-define species as you please, but you can do almost anything you want with genus-names (just don't expect a lot of acceptance of your ideas)
One of the leading paleontologist "celebs" recently published a book, where he did a bunch of hardcore lumping, effectively "eliminating" a whole range of peoples "favorite dinosaurs" :D
He did not eliminate their species, so, in reality, he did nothing to them, he considers every single species as valid as ever. He just considered them spread out over a redundant ammount of genera, and similar enough to all be stashed under a single genus (like many modern mammals and birds are)
His publication was met with a lot of emotion. There were no practical arguments against his decision, because, to be frank, there were no good reason to keep all these similar genera as separate. People were just pissed off he went out of his way to remove a bunch of cool names. And of course, his changes are far from permanent. Everyone else just have to ignore what he did.
A bit of a rant here
tltr - the conflict between guessing how a methodology works, and actually having checked, gives rise to further confusion.
-
Not sure why Calavera changed the title of this thread. It makes for an interesting question. Believe as long as man has existed, he has looked to the sky for answers to the unknowable, so yes, intuition favors God's existence.
Define intuition.
It already has a definition.
It's not intuition you're talking about, it's fear.
Jack sighs and copy/pastes the definition.
in·tu·i·tion
/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
noun: intuition
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness; More
sixth sense, clairvoyance, second sight
•a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
So, explain to me how intuition was involved when, say, a caveman watched a thunderstorm, terrified because he didn't understand what was going on, and assumed an evil sky-being was angry at the world.
It's not intuition--knowing things without conscious reasoning--it's fear.
-
I do think that using "intuition", or "instinct" for that matter, when discussing the (false) gut reaction of deducing the existence of a supernatural being is just wrong.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see that the definition fits.
-
So, explain to me how intuition was involved when, say, a caveman watched a thunderstorm, terrified because he didn't understand what was going on, and assumed an evil sky-being was angry at the world.
It's not intuition--knowing things without conscious reasoning--it's fear.
Will have to take that up with Webster to define fear as a sense of knowing without conscious reasining. Not claiming intuition is rational; by definition it's not. Some fear is rational.
I do think that using "intuition", or "instinct" for that matter, when discussing the (false) gut reaction of deducing the existence of a supernatural being is just wrong.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see that the definition fits.
That's exactly what intuition is, a gut reaction, and that's how it's defined.
-
Always understood the only meaningful distinction between the two, is psychopaths are born and sociopaths are raised. There's also a bit of argument within the mental health field over the discontinuation of the use of the terms. because while criminality is included in the criteria for ASPD, it isn't a requirement; so one could argue that while all psychopaths and sociopaths have ASPD, not everyone with ASPD is a psychopath or sociopath, and the element of criminality is the defining difference.
In Norwegian, I have always heard that the two terms are completely synonymous, reflected also by the fact that the Norwegian wiki redirects the terms to one and the same page.
If criminality is the defining difference, would that then mean that the difference between the conditions is determined by the laws of a country? :0
That's an odd way to view it, but in a manner yes. It's the first of the criteria.
1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
As for naming dinosaurs, your friend should discover something, thus giving him the entitlement to name it, then maybe he will understand what you're saying. :laugh:
-
So, explain to me how intuition was involved when, say, a caveman watched a thunderstorm, terrified because he didn't understand what was going on, and assumed an evil sky-being was angry at the world.
It's not intuition--knowing things without conscious reasoning--it's fear.
Will have to take that up with Webster to define fear as a sense of knowing without conscious reasining. Not claiming intuition is rational; by definition it's not. Some fear is rational.
I do think that using "intuition", or "instinct" for that matter, when discussing the (false) gut reaction of deducing the existence of a supernatural being is just wrong.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see that the definition fits.
That's exactly what intuition is, a gut reaction, and that's how it's defined.
But it implies *knowing*, which just isn't the case here.
-
But it implies *knowing*, which just isn't the case here.
Will agree with that. Knowing is attributed to conscious thought, while intuition isn't.
-
There are these funny things that never end. Like,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/PI.svg/280px-PI.svg.png)
which may indicate that advanced math is actually God. Just seems fun, but in reality, whether or not there is a divine altruistic entity, I can demonstrate that there is a GOD of torture/DEVIL or what ever.
Go here; (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/c/8/1c876634768c2e80cc51462032e27532.png) and you will know that there is most certainly a God of deciept/ Loki/Prince of Lies/Devil/Lord of the Hidden/a Seth/Dolos, etc.
What I am MORE terrified by is the possibility of the Circle Of Gods being true, such that for all manner of heathen and lordly GODS one can imagine, there is always an equal AND OPPOSITE GOD TO MATCH.
Fuck us all!
-
Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).
No. That was ignorance combined with fear.
That may be part of the god thing or just folk stories, but religion is all about social control. Its been extraordinarily successful.
-
Religion is actually based on fear.
-
I miss Calavera. :( Not many people enjoy playing the devil's advocate for God.
-
What happened to him? Does anyone know?
-
The last time he was here I got the impression he's too busy filling his brains, so good for him. :dunno:
-
That may be part of the god thing or just folk stories, but religion is all about social control. Its been extraordinarily successful.
Religion is actually based on fear.
These 2 statements don't contradict eachother, quite the opposite, they go hand in hand.
-
I am a follower of God and this thread has actually been really neat to read (the coherent responses not just the cheap jab responses) I respect other points of views and I've been told I'm not a very typical Christian well I'm not really even a Christian I am a Messianic Believer in Christ which is even more of a minority :laugh: I love it actually because I can be who I was created to be and not feel guilt and condemnation for there isn't any condemnation for those who are in Christ...His love that is patient and kind and is something that drives out fear...I'd go on but you as the reader get the point I'm sure...
Religion is the opposite of what I believe in, sadly some don't see this or cannot differentiate between religion and a relationship or I have been mocked for having a relationship with God...re: "I believe in the flying spaghetti monster" etc...it used to actually hurt me, but now I find it amusing :lol1: I can't expect all to understand faith and that is OK, I'm comfortable enough with who I am to be more then OK with that... :laugh:
Faith has been a huge anchor for me, and it has given me a sense of community when I didn't have any two years ago, faith has freed me from self-harm as mentioned before faith has given me an identity that complements who I am because I am free to be who I am without fear of being odd because that is how I was meant to be...
I'm OK with being the someone who breaks down walls in a conversation or in groups irl and from my experiences when I open up with others it's funny (neat) when I get feed back of 'wow you made me feel comfortable in my own skin' or 'you have given me hope that there is still goodness' I only point back to my faith that has caused it for really there isn't anything good in me but that which was put in me through walking with the God I love... :yarly:
-
Which is perfectly fine, of course. We all have to live with our beliefs.
-
That may be part of the god thing or just folk stories, but religion is all about social control. Its been extraordinarily successful.
Religion is actually based on fear.
These 2 statements don't contradict eachother, quite the opposite, they go hand in hand.
They certainly don't have to, but I meant that fear is most likely how religion started. Fear of the unknown, combined with the need to explain.
-
Religion is the opposite of what I believe in,
I forget who said this first, "religion is for those who are afraid of hell, spirituality is for those who've already been there".
-
Religion is the opposite of what I believe in,
I forget who said this first, "religion is for those who are afraid of hell, spirituality is for those who've already been there".
that is a good quote... :2thumbsup:
-
Religion is actually based on fear.
Basic fear of God, right?
Who would not be afraid of a God who decides to sacrifice his own son just to make the point that he can do this as often as he wishes.
While we both know that many myths are based upon some distortion of fact, where the hell did these people (who have burned others at the cross) decide that, instead of a kind and benevolent God or gods, such as most seem to worship, their God should speak in terms of boiling brimstone and hellfire.
Every pagan form of religion has a nice god for every harsh god just to keep a balance in nature. WTF is this whole one God does everything and he is terribly jealous and ridiculously vengeful, bullshit?
Oh shit, forgot to mention, the "Savior/Risen Son of God" sounds like a Zombie, by most definitions. Go figure.
-
My intuition says there is NO god.
My experience, however, suggests that I have had too many coincidences and hands up from nowhere I can define to completely ignore the possibility that something more powerful than I am is helping me at times.
When I die, I will either know the truth and I will become some of sort of evolved and advanced soul, never again able to post here or I will just simply be dead and I will never again be able to post here.
It may be up to you guys to help figure this out.
:laugh:
-
Religion is actually based on fear.
Basic fear of God, right?
Actually just fear of the unknown, to start with.
Who would not be afraid of a God who decides to sacrifice his own son just to make the point that he can do this as often as he wishes.
That sacrifice is sort of interesting, though. It's not really a sacrifice if the guy is still around, is it? Easier to make that kind of point when you know that your superpowers are enough to fix the problem later.
While we both know that many myths are based upon some distortion of fact, where the hell did these people (who have burned others at the cross) decide that, instead of a kind and benevolent God or gods, such as most seem to worship, their God should speak in terms of boiling brimstone and hellfire.
Every pagan form of religion has a nice god for every harsh god just to keep a balance in nature. WTF is this whole one God does everything and he is terribly jealous and ridiculously vengeful, bullshit?
Oh shit, forgot to mention, the "Savior/Risen Son of God" sounds like a Zombie, by most definitions. Go figure.
Basically, that vengeful and harsh god is central to the concept of fear. You don't fear the unknown if the unknown poses no significant threat to you.
-
I do not need the threat of eternal damnation from an omnipotent power to be a decent human being. If one needs religion to tell them not to kill other people, cheat on their spouses, or steal, then those people are psycho/sociopaths and need to be locked up away from normal functioning society.
-
Nah. I think that quite a few people need a set of rules to stop them, religious or otherwise. Human beings are, IMHO, not inherently moral or good.
-
I like having a God to talk things over with. I noticed that all religions just make up their own god. They have gods who only want them to worship on Saturdays, Gods who want them to avoid pork and seafood, gods who want them to turn the other cheek and gods who want an eye for an eye.
So I made up my own God.
My own God promotes kindness and love, yet gives me lots of practice to say "no". My own God reprimands me for being bitchy, but wants me to be assertive (and sends opportunity for me to practice that too). My God is giving me time to figure out the complexities of when good is bad and bad is good. Last night my God made sure I had enough gas to make the trip from Flagstaff to Silver City even though I should have filled my tank in Springerville - a total miracle! My God throws lots of difficulties my way to practice what I need to learn, but helps me get through it alive and sane.
I really love having my God in my corner.
If you want to know more about intuition, turn to neuroscience. Good intuition is the definition of wisdom and is the result of deep experience in the area that one is intuitive about. You can become intuitive without my God your yours.
-
When you talk to your own god, you are talking internally. That is what most religious people don't think they do, they think they talk externally, to someone outside their own head, even while they are constructing god's own answers - in their head!
-
When you talk to your own god, you are talking internally. That is what most religious people don't think they do, they think they talk externally, to someone outside their own head, even while they are constructing god's own answers - in their head!
Yes, that's what believers consider the conscience, god speaking to them.
-
OMG, the voices in my head are gods? And here I was, thinking I'm going crazy.
-
OMG, the voices in my head are gods? And here I was, thinking I'm going crazy.
Crazy? Really?
I just thought I was smarter than everyone else.
:angel:
-
OMG, the voices in my head are gods? And here I was, thinking I'm going crazy.
The same could be said for people who believe in a psyche or soul, free will and what dictates it, self-god. Then again all matter of philosophy is like that at its core, all something or nothing but still very similar in that way.
-
I figured since every religion makes up god based on themselves (some believe god has to be worshiped on Sunday, others Saturday, some believe an eye for an eye, others turn the other cheek, etc...), there is nothing stopping me. I have my own God and own religion. No one else need apply.
However, this has nothing to do with intuition. Intuition is the ability to decide based on rapid unconscious processing of experience. No God needed.
-
Yeah, Christians say god made us in his image but it's the other way around.
-
OMG, the voices in my head are gods? And here I was, thinking I'm going crazy.
As I have written before: If you talk to god, you're praying. If god talks to you, you're schizophrenic.
-
OMG, the voices in my head are gods? And here I was, thinking I'm going crazy.
As I have written before: If you talk to god, you're praying. If god talks to you, you're schizophrenic.
Preachers often say god speaks to them.
-
If there is a god, are the humans voices in his head?
-
If there is a god, are the humans voices in his head?
That would explain a lot
-
If there is a god, are the humans voices in his head?
That would explain a lot
How so?
-
If there is a god, are the humans voices in his head?
That would explain a lot
How so?
It would support all the circularity in religious logic. God seems to be on everyones winning side, all the paradox of God, it comes because he is fullfilling his own impulses, which are the random impulses of his children, who insist on abiding by his impulses, which we know are theirs
if that was the actual anatomy of divinity, i'd buy it
-
Interesting perspective. :laugh:
-
My intuition tells me that all religions make up their own gods" an eye for an eye. turn the other cheek, hate gays, love everyone but hate the sin, God love those who help them selves, God loves broken vessels, everyone needs to attedn church on Sunday, everyone should attend church on Saturday, yada yada yada". All highly prioritized.
So I created God in my own image. I always have someone to talk to and this genderfull god gives me advise on how to be the person I want to be. When help doesn't come that is b/c I have a lesson to learn. It is a comfort to me even though my God mostly wants me to win the lottery and yet that miracle is slow to manifest.
My God is a really great listener, and I suggest you all should switch to my god and begin paying me tithes. A mere 1% is the going rate.
-
Of course we make god in out own image. Nobody's ever spotted the actual thing.
-
I want to know, what the hell was god waiting for in the time before humans existed?
I mean, fine if he wants to test out some other life-forms and all, but come on, it's been like three BILLION years!
-
it's been like three BILLION years!
Time is relative. :laugh:
-
I want to know, what the hell was god waiting for in the time before humans existed?
I mean, fine if he wants to test out some other life-forms and all, but come on, it's been like three BILLION years!
There are billions of earth-like planets in this universe alone. Don't you think that's plenty to keep a superpower occupied? No wonder we all sit here wondering why we are being ignored. Maybe God prefers the beings who keep their planets neat and tidy and have learned how to play nice. This planet is literally an unGodly place.
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
Find it most interesting when people try to psychoanalyze god. :laugh: Things like, god wants, god thinks, are a bit different than interpreting the bible.
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
Find it most interesting when people try to psychoanalyze god. :laugh: Things like, god wants, god thinks, are a bit different than interpreting the bible.
Since we all create our own gods/godlessness in our own images or in the images of our cults' (frequently legitimized as churches) beliefs, as did those in the bible, who else would be the better judge? I know what my god wants and thinks, so bugger off to your own god, Jack.
The bible is a collection of literary genres: creation stories, mythology, sensual poetry, sexual adventures, military history, hygiene rules, science fiction, and a play. The religious scholars call the collection a cannon and recognize it's not a single entity. Taken together, the vignettes are vague enough and contain enough contradictions to reduce the validity of one interpretation over another. So how is individual/cult personification god remarkably different than individual/cult bible interpretation?
Let people form their own belief system. Anyone who thinks they have the truth is either uneducated or deluded. When these individuals/cults try to impose their beliefs on others, they are trespassing. This has justified 6 millennia of horrific tragedy, and luckily is finally loosing its power.
-
The bible is a collection of literary genres:
Have never been able to answer the question of, if stranded alone on an island with only one book, which would it be. It's a toss up between the complete works of William Shakespeare, or the bible. They're both the type of work one could read for a lifetime, and never have a complete sense of knowing all of it, plus the language of both are special, much the same and somehow different from anything else. It's a shame, can't be faced with the real circumstance of stranded island to know which it would be.
Let people form their own belief system. Anyone who thinks they have the truth is either uneducated or deluded.
If my opinion, or even mockery, of anything you do, is ever allowed to intrude on your beliefs, then stop doing that.
-
The bible is a collection of literary genres:
Have never been able to answer the question of, if stranded alone on an island with only one book, which would it be. It's a toss up between the complete works of William Shakespeare, or the bible. They're both the type of work one could read for a lifetime, and never have a complete sense of knowing all of it, plus the language of both are special, much the same and somehow different from anything else. It's a shame, can't be faced with the real circumstance of stranded island to know which it would be.
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
I would go with William. I read the bible about 5 times, and while I am no expert - I would need to better understand the historical context and learn the original languages - it does have its limitations. The new testament, for example, is very succinct in its writing. And Deuteronomy is a bit dry.
Shakespeare has so much more raw humaness in a sophisticated artistic package, and I think more complexity. He also presents a wider range of the feminine psyche and superior character development. Plus, it is a better read a loud, which I would enjoy on my little deserted island.
I used to be such a reader - I kept stacks of books for fear I would run out, but now I don't see so well. The eye strain is too much and just puts me to sleep. I want me some good vision benefits!
-
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
Why is that?
I would go with William. I read the bible about 5 times, and while I am no expert - I would need to better understand the historical context and learn the original languages - it does have its limitations. The new testament, for example, is very succinct in its writing. And Deuteronomy is a bit dry.
Shakespeare has so much more raw humaness in a sophisticated package, and I think more complexity. He also presents a wider range of the feminine psyche and superior character development. Plus, it is a better read a loud, which I would enjoy on my little deserted island.
I used to be such a reader - I kept stacks of books for fear I would run out, but now I don't see so well. The eye strain is too much and just puts me to sleep. I want me some good vision benefits!
Don't have much interest in the characters or stories contained in either. It's more about the bits and pieces, moments; not certain it's possible to explain. The voice behind both is the same.
-
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
Why is that?
your attraction to the "special language". Maybe you should tell me more about what you mean?
[/quote]Don't have much interest in the characters or stories contained in either. It's more about the bits and pieces, moments; not certain it's possible to explain. The voice behind both is the same.
[/quote]
The bible has many voices. Shakespeare has complexity of characters. It sounds like you might enjoy the bible and I Shakespeare. Maybe it will turn out that we are actually on different ends of the same island and we could trade every so often
-
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
Why is that?
your attraction to the "special language". Maybe you should tell me more about what you mean?
First tell me why you assumed I prefer the king james version. You'll like my answer about the language; it's interesting.
The bible has many voices. Shakespeare has complexity of characters. It sounds like you might enjoy the bible and I Shakespeare. Maybe it will turn out that we are actually on different ends of the same island and we could trade every so often
Is that you waving?
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
Find it most interesting when people try to psychoanalyze god. :laugh: Things like, god wants, god thinks, are a bit different than interpreting the bible.
I think god would benefit from cognitive behaviour therapy.
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
Find it most interesting when people try to psychoanalyze god. :laugh: Things like, god wants, god thinks, are a bit different than interpreting the bible.
I think god would benefit from cognitive behaviour therapy.
Maybe his mother just didn't hold him enough as a baby. :laugh:
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
Find it most interesting when people try to psychoanalyze god. :laugh: Things like, god wants, god thinks, are a bit different than interpreting the bible.
I think god would benefit from cognitive behaviour therapy.
Maybe his mother just didn't hold him enough as a baby. :laugh:
Maybe she dropped him. :laugh:
-
/shrugs
There's always going to be a million excuses and explanations from those who wish to explain his absence.
Find it most interesting when people try to psychoanalyze god. :laugh: Things like, god wants, god thinks, are a bit different than interpreting the bible.
I think god would benefit from cognitive behaviour therapy.
Maybe his mother just didn't hold him enough as a baby. :laugh:
Maybe she dropped him. :laugh:
Those flat spots take months to develop, not blunt force trauma; he was clearly severely neglected. :laugh:
-
The universe is in the hands of someone with severe trauma issues.
-
The universe is in the hands of someone with severe trauma issues.
His own son was willing to die in order to save us from his insane holy wrath.
-
The universe is in the hands of someone with severe trauma issues.
His own son was willing to die in order to save us from his insane holy wrath.
Never really saw the big sacrifice in this, though. I mean, if your dad is almighty, where is the risk?
-
The universe is in the hands of someone with severe trauma issues.
His own son was willing to die in order to save us from his insane holy wrath.
Never really saw the big sacrifice in this, though. I mean, if your dad is almighty, where is the risk?
Maybe it wasn't altruistic, and he was saving himself too.
-
The universe is in the hands of someone with severe trauma issues.
His own son was willing to die in order to save us from his insane holy wrath.
Never really saw the big sacrifice in this, though. I mean, if your dad is almighty, where is the risk?
Maybe it wasn't altruistic, and he was saving himself too.
None of the Jesus/Trinity story makes sense, it's not supposed to.
-
Odeon and I are making jokes, because I said it was funny when people psychoanalyze god; now we're also psychoanalyzing jesus.
-
Odeon and I are making jokes, because I said it was funny when people psychoanalyze god; now we're also psychoanalyzing jesus.
Now there's a guy who would benefit from therapy. Can you imagine the issues? An authoritarian dad and an absent mum. No peers to play with. Dad always busy working.
-
this I find funny :asthing: (and I have faith) you guys make my nights/day's brighter because you are goofy and I love all of you for it... :2thumbsup:
-
Odeon and I are making jokes, because I said it was funny when people psychoanalyze god; now we're also psychoanalyzing jesus.
Now there's a guy who would benefit from therapy. Can you imagine the issues? An authoritarian dad and an absent mum. No peers to play with. Dad always busy working.
Always found it interesting the bible omits Jesus' adolescence and young adult years completely, possibly an extremely troubled and rebellious youth, best forgoten.
-
this I find funny :asthing: (and I have faith) you guys make my nights/day's brighter because you are goofy and I love all of you for it... :2thumbsup:
A true believer would try to save us all from hell. :hahaha:
-
A true believer would try to save us all from hell. :hahaha:
A true believer wades into hell wearing hip boots. Here we are!
-
Odeon and I are making jokes, because I said it was funny when people psychoanalyze god; now we're also psychoanalyzing jesus.
Now there's a guy who would benefit from therapy. Can you imagine the issues? An authoritarian dad and an absent mum. No peers to play with. Dad always busy working.
Always found it interesting the bible omits Jesus' adolescence and young adult years completely, possibly an extremely troubled and rebellious youth, best forgoten.
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
-
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
-
I'm listening to rap
And I'm high
so naturally I imagined Jesus just taking up a pose, before moving his hands mechanically, his feet, for then to breakdance to everyones astonishment, complete control, total attitude, just, uh-uh move-move yeah
weed for everyone!
-
A true believer would try to save us all from hell. :hahaha:
A true believer wades into hell wearing hip boots. Here we are!
ha-ha :yarly: ya'll have free will dear ones...Jesus didn't go around hitting folks over the head with a Torah...the religious freaks of his day did that enough as it was...just as it is today, not much changes as far as people go pushing xyz onto others, when they fail to realize that yea free will etc...some say 'the xyz made me do it' uh no you chose to do 123 largo one, even to be brainwashed one chooses to (scary enough) yield there minds and themselves over to brainwashing...but I digress... :chores:
Last I checked God wanted spiritual fruit not a religious nut... :laugh: :2thumbsup:
ps. I want those boots they sound rad
-
A true believer would try to save us all from hell. :hahaha:
A true believer wades into hell wearing hip boots. Here we are!
:viking:
-
ya'll have free will dear ones
No I don't. :hahaha:
-
ya'll have free will dear ones
No I don't. :hahaha:
yea you do :yarly:
-
Jesus didn't go around hitting folks over the head with a Torah.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. ~Mark 16:15
-
ya'll have free will dear ones
No I don't. :hahaha:
yea you do :yarly:
No I don't, and telling me I do wont change it. I don't have free will to believe something I don't believe, just like I can't disbelieve something I do believe. That's the thing with believing something, the believing part. It's nonsense to tell me otherwise. :tard:
-
Free will is not a factual given, but a faith-based concept.
In science, the whole idea is rickety, because of how much of human behaviour that is driven by all kinds of pre existing impulses (many of them hormonal, ALL of them automatic). A complete understanding of human behavioral mechanics renders the idea of "free will" almost moot. Free will becomes "whatever your circumstances allow your will to approach"
-
Of course free will is a faith based concept. :hahaha:
-
Of course free will is a faith based concept. :hahaha:
More likely the opposite. Made this point not long ago with Calandale. There's no free will in the bible. The bible is easier interpreted as god to be sovereign, the creator of both good and evil, with the believers being chosen, and god intentionally sending a delusion to those who don't believe.
-
It doesn't have to be Christian to be faith-based.
By faith I mean you have to believe in free will. It's not like believing in something tangible, like the moon, or cars, "free will" is fleety and difficult to pinpoint.
We tend to see a large selection of options as evidence of free will, yet everyone picks a single option each time they act, that option is normally picked without much consideration, it simply follows your usual pattern, which in turn is a result of a series of interactions with ones environment. As your options decrease, so does the freedom of your will :D
If I tie someone to a chair, their freedom is limited and their will is powerless. They're gonna have to adjust their will to something they can achieve :]
I'm rambling now, point is, "free will" is like "art" or "meaning of life", it is a philosophical concept
-
It doesn't have to be Christian to be faith-based.
Yeah, I was just being a smartass. :green:
-
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
-
There was some incident where he ran off and went to the temple at something like 12 years old and had all the scholars and priests gathered round him to discuss Deep Things.
-
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
Jesus the party animal.
-
There was some incident where he ran off and went to the temple at something like 12 years old and had all the scholars and priests gathered round him to discuss Deep Things.
Seems like a lot of pressure.
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
Jesus the party animal.
Jesus the bootlegger.
-
It doesn't have to be Christian to be faith-based.
Yeah, I was just being a smartass. :green:
I will say this, faith has been an anchor for me and if you all see that as whatever you will that's fine by me...It is something that has helped me through the tough times of late and is something I cling to and have found I've been stronger for it...
http://www.mercyministries.org/stories/489/Hannah2013Graduate (http://www.mercyministries.org/stories/489/Hannah2013Graduate)
wasn't easy to go through this, but I am glad I did...call it what you will, I am stronger for having gained the tools I needed to move on with my life...and things are looking brighter, for once I'm excited to live life...that is a huge deal for me having spent years just not caring at best or wanting to off myself at worst...
:yarly:
-
I just read of other Success Stories through that site....seems a lot of girls turn to cutting and restricting food in order to control their lives before they go to Mercy.
I know what it is like but this most recent time I have gotten through it by myself, I don't even have a psychologist because I can't afford it. I am supposed to get free services through the local mental health clinic but they are taking their time in contacting me, oh well.
-
There was some incident where he ran off and went to the temple at something like 12 years old and had all the scholars and priests gathered round him to discuss Deep Things.
Seems like a lot of pressure.
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
Jesus the party animal.
Jesus the bootlegger.
Can you imagine his second coming? Meth lab? I don't need no stinkin meth lab!
-
It doesn't have to be Christian to be faith-based.
Yeah, I was just being a smartass. :green:
I will say this, faith has been an anchor for me and if you all see that as whatever you will that's fine by me...It is something that has helped me through the tough times of late and is something I cling to and have found I've been stronger for it...
http://www.mercyministries.org/stories/489/Hannah2013Graduate (http://www.mercyministries.org/stories/489/Hannah2013Graduate)
wasn't easy to go through this, but I am glad I did...call it what you will, I am stronger for having gained the tools I needed to move on with my life...and things are looking brighter, for once I'm excited to live life...that is a huge deal for me having spent years just not caring at best or wanting to off myself at worst...
:yarly:
That's awesome, Hannah. Thanks for making it about you, instead of others somehow choosing not to believe like you.
-
There was some incident where he ran off and went to the temple at something like 12 years old and had all the scholars and priests gathered round him to discuss Deep Things.
Seems like a lot of pressure.
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
Jesus the party animal.
Jesus the bootlegger.
Can you imagine his second coming? Meth lab? I don't need no stinkin meth lab!
You think he'll relapse back to his old ways?
-
There was some incident where he ran off and went to the temple at something like 12 years old and had all the scholars and priests gathered round him to discuss Deep Things.
Seems like a lot of pressure.
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
Jesus the party animal.
Jesus the bootlegger.
Can you imagine his second coming? Meth lab? I don't need no stinkin meth lab!
You think he'll relapse back to his old ways?
I think he might break bad. :zoinks:
-
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
There's a Bizarro comic strip where Jesus is shown as a teen, with a smug grin, as he raises a dead guys boner (under the tunic), while the worried parents of the deceased going "we were kindov hoping you would raise all of him" (tried to google it up, but no luck)
obviously, it's a strip categorized as "poor taste" or something, comic artists sometimes have to make this special category since their strips are often shown in kiddy mags :D
-
Probably got in with a bad crowd and terrorised his immediate neighbourhood.
Can you imagine Jesus the 6-yo? "My dad is stronger than your dad."
Imagine the teenager able to make water into wine.
There's a Bizarro comic strip where Jesus is shown as a teen, with a smug grin, as he raises a dead guys boner (under the tunic), while the worried parents of the deceased going "we were kindov hoping you would raise all of him" (tried to google it up, but no luck)
obviously, it's a strip categorized as "poor taste" or something, comic artists sometimes have to make this special category since their strips are often shown in kiddy mags :D
That's really funny. If I ever get Jesus powers, there's going to be lots of boners. :zoinks:
-
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
Why is that?
your attraction to the "special language". Maybe you should tell me more about what you mean?
First tell me why you assumed I prefer the king james version. You'll like my answer about the language; it's interesting.
Do you want to know the answer?
-
Why are you talking to yourself? :tard:
-
Why are you talking to yourself? :tard:
well perhaps they found the wrong thread? You know the say something to yourself thread...no idea
-
Why are you talking to yourself? :tard:
Awiddershinlife didn't respond to my post.
-
Why are you talking to yourself? :tard:
Awiddershinlife didn't respond to my post.
Because you already know her answer, and she knows yours. :hahaha:
-
Why are you talking to yourself? :tard:
Awiddershinlife didn't respond to my post.
Because you already know her answer, and she knows yours. :hahaha:
I think all of you know shit, esp about me. What post was neglected?
-
This one.
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
Why is that?
your attraction to the "special language". Maybe you should tell me more about what you mean?
First tell me why you assumed I prefer the king james version. You'll like my answer about the language; it's interesting.
The bible has many voices. Shakespeare has complexity of characters. It sounds like you might enjoy the bible and I Shakespeare. Maybe it will turn out that we are actually on different ends of the same island and we could trade every so often
Is that you waving?
-
This one.
I take it that King James is your go to edition?
Why is that?
your attraction to the "special language". Maybe you should tell me more about what you mean?
First tell me why you assumed I prefer the king james version. You'll like my answer about the language; it's interesting.
I did answer that...your attraction to the "special language" from a previous post. So what's the answer I'll like?
The bible has many voices. Shakespeare has complexity of characters. It sounds like you might enjoy the bible and I Shakespeare. Maybe it will turn out that we are actually on different ends of the same island and we could trade every so often
Is that you waving?
:flyingbat: its me!
-
Ah, misunderstood. Now then thinking you might understand the answer. There's something unique about the language of both, something which makes the two very much alike, but still completely different than anything else. Don't really know what that is; a certain something I don't know what. That's why they have the same voice. Have before said, if not knowing for certain which was written first, would wonder who copied whose writing style. Both also share a quality which allows the reader to pluck a single sentence or phrase completely out of context, and it have so much meaning on its own, applicable to so many different moments and circumstance. Can't imagine there's much in life which both Shakespeare and the Bible aren't applicable.
-
Oh, plus really like all the proper Thy's and Thou's and eth's and ye's; it's rather amusing.
-
You should read it in the Finnish translation.
-
Why should I do that?
-
Ah, misunderstood. Now then thinking you might understand the answer. There's something unique about the language of both, something which makes the two very much alike, but still completely different than anything else. Don't really know what that is; a certain something I don't know what. That's why they have the same voice. Have before said, if not knowing for certain which was written first, would wonder who copied whose writing style.
I will try to find the research that showed bible thumping christians passages from the bible and from shakespeare for them to choose the ones from the bible. It was hard, many mistakes.
Both also share a quality which allows the reader to pluck a single sentence or phrase completely out of context, and it have so much meaning on its own, applicable to so many different moments and circumstance. Can't imagine there's much in life which both Shakespeare and the Bible aren't applicable.
That some idiot trying to prove something can take a quote out of context to prove s/he's right is a problem for those who take such things seriously. Luckily someone else can pull another scripture out of context from the Bible to refute the first. But I am not sure how this makes it applicable...
But the language of both (if using a translation like the King James rather than something like the New Life Version) are lofty enough to give it a feel of authority and beauty.
-
Ah, misunderstood. Now then thinking you might understand the answer. There's something unique about the language of both, something which makes the two very much alike, but still completely different than anything else. Don't really know what that is; a certain something I don't know what. That's why they have the same voice. Have before said, if not knowing for certain which was written first, would wonder who copied whose writing style.
I will try to find the research that showed bible thumping christians passages from the bible and from shakespeare for them to choose the ones from the bible. It was hard, many mistakes.
Both also share a quality which allows the reader to pluck a single sentence or phrase completely out of context, and it have so much meaning on its own, applicable to so many different moments and circumstance. Can't imagine there's much in life which both Shakespeare and the Bible aren't applicable.
That some idiot trying to prove something can take a quote out of context to prove s/he's right is a problem for those who take such things seriously. Luckily someone else can pull another scripture out of context from the Bible to refute the first. But I am not sure how this makes it applicable...
But the language of both (if using a translation like the King James rather than something like the New Life Version) are lofty enough to give it a feel of authority and beauty.
Maybe have been misunderstood. Was talking of personal experience, not research of others, and didn't mean to imply they're indiscernible. Not certain how anyone could prove anything at all with either, or completely sure what this response means. Not going to be borrowing the bible, then?
-
Can't imagine there's much in life which both Shakespeare and the Bible aren't applicable.
What does the shakespearian bible say about pooping, Jack? :zoinks:
-
As a dog returns to his poo so too a fool to his folly...(is what I think that proverb really means) it says vomit but dogs eat their poo not their vomit that I've seen :apondering:
-
:lol1: :plus:
-
Why should I do that?
For the fun of it?
-
That some idiot trying to prove something can take a quote out of context to prove s/he's right is a problem for those who take such things seriously. Luckily someone else can pull another scripture out of context from the Bible to refute the first. But I am not sure how this makes it applicable...
If you're trying to prove a point using a translation--any translation--it's what you get.
-
Can't imagine there's much in life which both Shakespeare and the Bible aren't applicable.
What does the shakespearian bible say about pooping, Jack? :zoinks:
That you should start digging. :M
-
Why should I do that?
For the fun of it?
Probably wouldn't glean much, sans Finnish and all.
-
Can't imagine there's much in life which both Shakespeare and the Bible aren't applicable.
What does the shakespearian bible say about pooping, Jack? :zoinks:
That you should start digging. :M
deuteronomy goes on and on about hygiene. Of course, they were mostly concerned with women, who were though of as dirty at best, and frequently perceived as worst. I am not going to look it up if taking a dump is covered, but I would be surprised if it not there.