Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are you an atheist? I am, and so should you.; (be one that is)
Topic Started: Jul 15 2009, 07:59 PM (4,785 Views)
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Actually, reading Mahabharata will be good for many people here. Even if you don't read the whole thing, at least read the Wikipedia entry on it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahābhārata

20 times the Iliad and Odyssey combined. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry, even if Crash IS doing this to be naughty , so what?

It is a open free discussion and nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head.
They don't have to participate.

I think it was a legit discussion.

It does seem a little flighty to flip flop between capital to lower-case G so quickly though. :wacko:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
kenny, it's still and always will be a lower case g. Thank God!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Jul 19 2009, 08:26 PM
It does seem a little flighty to flip flop between capital to lower-case G so quickly though. :wacko:
Haven't you hear? The new MacBook Pro with its 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB shared L2 cache and 1066MHz frontside bus can let you flip between "g" and "G" 3X faster! :excited:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 19 2009, 12:06 PM

Interesting side note - the Caananites were a marauding bunch of throwbacks who spent their lives attacking everyone else, killing them, and stealing their property. They came from the desert regions of the middle east. Could they be the ancestors of.........

Here's a better side note. You are wrong.


The biblical yarn about the divinely ordered genocide never happened or, more accurately, is an allegory describing the assimilation of the sedentary Canaanites into the nomadic tribes of Israel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
It was the Canaanites who were nomadic, was it not?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
No, from what I understand the Canaanites were mostly settled peasant farmers.

Lemche, Niels Peter. The Canaanites and Their Land
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
I have a question here for those who consider themselves religious:

Do you really believe in the supernatural magic of it all? If you say that you believe in a god that is in the universe, nature, and perhaps a force in the world- OK. But how many of you actually believe in miracles? In the devil, angels, and all of that sort of mysticism? In turning water into wine?


I can understand if someone does not want to commit to the idea that 100% there is no god - but to ascribe to the supernatural aspects of religion is just a bit of a stretch I honestly feel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
CrashTest
Jul 20 2009, 04:13 PM
I have a question here for those who consider themselves religious:

Do you really believe in the supernatural magic of it all? If you say that you believe in a god that is in the universe, nature, and perhaps a force in the world- OK. But how many of you actually believe in miracles? In the devil, angels, and all of that sort of mysticism? In turning water into wine?


I can understand if someone does not want to commit to the idea that 100% there is no god - but to ascribe to the supernatural aspects of religion is just a bit of a stretch I honestly feel.
I don't believe in many things, but I do believe there is evidence for some mythical creatures. Trolls, for example.

Posted Image
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I believe in turning water into wine. It happens every year.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
John D'Oh
Jul 20 2009, 04:28 PM
CrashTest
Jul 20 2009, 04:13 PM
I have a question here for those who consider themselves religious:

Do you really believe in the supernatural magic of it all? If you say that you believe in a god that is in the universe, nature, and perhaps a force in the world- OK. But how many of you actually believe in miracles? In the devil, angels, and all of that sort of mysticism? In turning water into wine?


I can understand if someone does not want to commit to the idea that 100% there is no god - but to ascribe to the supernatural aspects of religion is just a bit of a stretch I honestly feel.
I don't believe in many things, but I do believe there is evidence for some mythical creatures. Trolls, for example.

Posted Image
:rimshot:
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
bump
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I can turn beer into pee.

It's sort of a miracle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
A real miracle would be the reverse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moosehead does that every day.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
John D'Oh
Jul 20 2009, 04:28 PM
Posted Image
Cave trolls.

TNCR has them.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2009, 09:15 AM
Moosehead does that every day.
Nah. They just bottle it and say they did. :lol:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmoosetoe69
Member Avatar
Member
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2009, 09:15 AM
Moosehead does that every day.
You know what the difference between Ohio and Alberta is?

In Ohio, Moosehead is a beer.

In Alberta, it's a felony.
"I come from a land down under..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
Jul 21 2009, 09:05 AM
A real miracle would be the reverse.
That's done all the time. It's called Budweiser, Miller, Keystone, Natty, Coors....you get the idea.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I always wondered why a person only retained a teaspoonful of Bud or Coors after drinking a dozen or two. Now I know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Uhhh... you listed superessentiality as one of those things that you at least intuitively got (presumably because all of those are issues in which you were not thinking materialistically but rather through your Nietzschean uberman model), so the fact that superessentiality has nothing to do with materiality seems obvious at this point.


The superessential thing looks to me like magical thinking but I can atleast grasp the intuition about minds being independent from the kind of stuff we see around us (including things like bodies) so I have some vague notion of the idea that is being expressed. That's not presupposing anything it's just that I can get some idea of what is intended (even though I think the idea is fundamentally flawed and falls apart just by thinking about it a bit). By contrast in terms of the other statements, i have no idea what it is you're trying to say.

Quote:
 

Please tell me precisely what I have in mind by "materiality" and why it is confused. There is little point proceeding beyond that if you are holding possibly false understandings to what I think, let alone hold them as confused.


I can't really tell you what precisely you have in mind because I can't find a coherent interpretation of the way you use the term. I suspect when you stop to think about stuff in the world you have billiard balls (i.e. solids) in mind - which is not unreasonable since that's the most immediate and intutive way of thinking about the world around us it just turns out not to be adequate. But that's not all there is to it because your objections in this thread do not fit that usage. :shrug:

Quote:
 

E.g., that you still miss the point about simple as without parts, and refer to it as chunks (which imply parts to those chunks), and reference it to complexity in terms of complicated to comprehend, is not something I am inclined to deal with.


I wasn't implying that (which is why I mentioned the dynamics atoms and people being understood in terms of different forces and motivations respectively). I was trying to explain where this notion of "parts" comes from. Our everyday usage of "complexity" means complicated, difficult to comprehend. The reason we consider hard to understand stuff in terms of easier to understand "parts" (if we are splitting it up into physical components) is because it makes it easier to grasp what's going on. (In the case of physical "parts" we define them. We split up some system into a particular set of subcomponents which we then try and understand independently, we don't have to, and we are free to draw the lines whereever we like, it's just that in most situations drawing those lines in certain particular places makes life much easier than the alternatives).

When you say God has no parts, what do you mean? If you were talking about a solid object i might guess that you meant the whole thing is welded together but you've stressed that you aren't talking about objects in the world as we normally think of them so... what is it you intend by that description?

I must confess i don't think you have really good answers to these question, instead i suspect that you know that a particular collection of words are supposed to descibe this God character of yours and you can reproduce them when a description of God is called for but you don't actually have a specific idea in mind that you are trying to get across.

Quote:
 

Edit to add: BTW Moonbat, I really don't want to be dismissive, and I apologize if it comes across that way. I am not sure how to proceed since the language you are using is analogous by not the same, and the implications are too divergent. Sorry.


Analogous by not the same? ah you must have meant analagous but not the same. ... hmm, terms like atemporal and immutable seem quite clear cut, it's that, well, it's just wrong to apply them to the monotheist conceptions of a personal God. If you mean something else by those words other than their usual meanings - then just tell me what is it that you mean. As i say above though if it's just that you know these are the words that are supposed to descibe God and thats that, then fair enough all of my incomprehension goes away.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jul 21 2009, 10:13 AM
Quote:
 

Uhhh... you listed superessentiality as one of those things that you at least intuitively got (presumably because all of those are issues in which you were not thinking materialistically but rather through your Nietzschean uberman model), so the fact that superessentiality has nothing to do with materiality seems obvious at this point.

The superessential thing looks to me like magical thinking but I can atleast grasp the intuition about minds being independent from the kind of stuff we see around us (including things like bodies) so I have some vague notion of the idea that is being expressed. That's not presupposing anything it's just that I can get some idea of what is intended (even though I think the idea is fundamentally flawed and falls apart just by thinking about it a bit). By contrast in terms of the other statements, i have no idea what it is you're trying to say.

I have no idea what you mean by "magical thinking" other than some parlour tricks, unless you are referring to some Gebserian model or other model of consciousness. But neither of those have any pertinence so I assume it is just your dismissive meme for metaphysics in general. So, really, I have no idea what it is you are trying to say other than that.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 

Please tell me precisely what I have in mind by "materiality" and why it is confused. There is little point proceeding beyond that if you are holding possibly false understandings to what I think, let alone hold them as confused.

I can't really tell you what precisely you have in mind because I can't find a coherent interpretation of the way you use the term. I suspect when you stop to think about stuff in the world you have billiard balls (i.e. solids) in mind - which is not unreasonable since that's the most immediate and intutive way of thinking about the world around us it just turns out not to be adequate. But that's not all there is to it because your objections in this thread do not fit that usage. :shrug:
Of course you can't tell precisely, in fact you can't even tell generally. You just dismiss other people's points of view as "incoherent" or other such non starters. You are wrong in your assumptions, since materiality obviously includes space and time and energy and other measurable things other than "solid" things. We've discussed this in the past, so I don't understand why you keep reverting to previous tread ground.
Quote:
 

Quote:
 

E.g., that you still miss the point about simple as without parts, and refer to it as chunks (which imply parts to those chunks), and reference it to complexity in terms of complicated to comprehend, is not something I am inclined to deal with.

I wasn't implying that (which is why I mentioned the dynamics atoms and people being understood in terms of different forces and motivations respectively). I was trying to explain where this notion of "parts" comes from. Our everyday usage of "complexity" means complicated, difficult to comprehend. The reason we consider hard to understand stuff in terms of easier to understand "parts" (if we are splitting it up into physical components) is because it makes it easier to grasp what's going on. (In the case of physical "parts" we define them. We split up some system into a particular set of subcomponents which we then try and understand independently, we don't have to, and we are free to draw the lines whereever we like, it's just that in most situations drawing those lines in certain particular places makes life much easier than the alternatives).
And that really means nothing in terms of the metaphysical or theological usage of "simplex/simple". We are not talking about every day usage, which tends toward commonplace and crude language. I tried to explain that earlier, but you keep reverting back to some epistemological model for understanding material things that has no bearing on the discussion --you seem to be still enmeshed in your limited materialistic mind set. And to show the limitations of your materialistic mindset, that demands simplification of complexity for understanding, it should suffice to point out that "idea" itself is simple and has no parts, is not measureable, has no energy, is not bound by space or time, is without limits, and is not contingent on any human thinking "idea". Yet "idea" exists as idea even if no mind thinks it. (The same cannot be said of your cartoonish FSM which is a complex of contingent ideas.)
Quote:
 

When you say God has no parts, what do you mean? If you were talking about a solid object i might guess that you meant the whole thing is welded together but you've stressed that you aren't talking about objects in the world as we normally think of them so... what is it you intend by that description?

I must confess i don't think you have really good answers to these question, instead i suspect that you know that a particular collection of words are supposed to descibe this God character of yours and you can reproduce them when a description of God is called for but you don't actually have a specific idea in mind that you are trying to get across.
You seem hopelessly bound to material explanations. I understand why, but that limits the ability to communicate about nonmateriality. To say God is simple/God has no parts is a logical extension form that God is not matter/materiality/measureable/contingent/temporal/finite/caused etc. A contingent being is contingent on its parts -- Moonbat does not exist except for his parts. A being with parts is necessarily caused -- since *something* has caused parts that are not united to be united. A thing with parts can be described in terms of its parts that do not speak of the whole, and no part can be said to speak for the whole. You as a scientist can keep chasing things back to get to the source of all parts and you never will, for you will only wind up with a vast number of separate things, which is not the same as simplicity, let alone unity.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 

Edit to add: BTW Moonbat, I really don't want to be dismissive, and I apologize if it comes across that way. I am not sure how to proceed since the language you are using is analogous by not the same, and the implications are too divergent. Sorry.

Analogous by not the same? ah you must have meant analagous but not the same. ... hmm, terms like atemporal and immutable seem quite clear cut, it's that, well, it's just wrong to apply them to the monotheist conceptions of a personal God. If you mean something else by those words other than their usual meanings - then just tell me what is it that you mean. As i say above though if it's just that you know these are the words that are supposed to descibe God and thats that, then fair enough all of my incomprehension goes away.
I am surprised it took you so long to comprehend meaning from a simple typo -- but it was fascinating to glimpse your mind at work overcoming incomprehension. This gives me some hope. :)

You have to do better than just say its, well, wrong. You claim to have some notion of atemporality and immutability, but you have no scientific knowledge of anything that is not temporal or mutable. Show me something that is atemporal and/or immutable, otherwise I have to assume that your incomprehension remains quite apart from my usage, and your claim that its wrong to ascribe them to God as the Christians understand that term is unsubstantiated.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
kenny
Jul 21 2009, 09:03 AM
I can turn beer into pee.

It's sort of a miracle.
That's good. Never heard it before.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeff
Jul 21 2009, 06:17 PM
kenny
Jul 21 2009, 09:03 AM
I can turn beer into pee.

It's sort of a miracle.
That's good. Never heard it before.
Kennisians 8:14.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply