a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
Who cares???
Lots of people.
What possible effect does it have on us.
Understanding our reality has profound effect on the ones within it.
There is a history I can experience through books and artifacts. It's incredibly flipping cool.
I totally agree.
How can I bother to expend an iota of concern over whether a tree falling in the woods makes any sound if no one is around?
Why should we care about what atoms consist of? Because the answer introduces a richer experience for all.
a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
We know time is interwoven in space and is variable depending on where you are (and when you are). For example time is altered by gravity, people in space experience time slower than us, in fact even any increment in height slightly alters time, so on top of a mountain time passes slower as it is further away from the centre of the earth etc etc. These are small amounts obviously.
If space and time came into existence AFTER the big bang, then wouldn't that mean that there is no "before" the Big Bang? Since the word implies TIME? Also, how do we know we haven't had this conversation an infinite amount of times?
a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
look how fragile and insignificant we are.
Fragile? We are built to survive. Insignificant? We are on the path to harnessing the power of the stars. Small =/= fragile and insignifiant. Life is precious because it's life, not any other reason.
a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
Snare (or anyone else), before the Big Bang did time and space exist?
a thought that occurs to me is that if one has the belief that all that is real is only explicable in terms of particles and forces, and that nothing exists that is not one of these, then good and bad doesnt exist either, the same would be true for any concept for that matter.
or perhaps it is only true when reduced to the level of matter and forces, but without the moral force, meaning and purpose that such a materialist only description would entail.
after all, if death is forever, which is materialist view, then what does it matter if a seventy or seven year old enters the grave?
A "rational" Atheist ? I have never met an irrational one.
Cofty is the most irrational person I have ever seen. In fact, all the outspoken atheists on this board fly in the face of basic logic and reason. It's funny to watch them present themselves as champions of academia when they are just people with too much time on their hands.
This was a great post, Seraphim23. The atheist reality is just as valid (or invalid depending on how you look at it) as any other world view. Until science can give us a 100% explanation of everything, no one can conclusively prove or disprove anything. There is no such thing as an objective reality, which puts a wrench into any absolute claim. Science will never catch up to God.
Think of reality as a video game with a first person point of view. There is the character, there is the controller of the character and then there is the designer of the game world. This is a good analogy to describe the seperation between body and spirit. The character doesn't know that all their actions are predetermined by the person playing the game. They don't know that what they percieve as "self" is actually not their true self at all. They don't see the wires and circuits needed to make their reality, but to the gamer it's just a simple peice of technology, nothing supernatural about it.
The physical reality is a byproduct of the spiritual reality. Without the spirit, the body cannot exist. Just like if the gamer turned off the video game. The spirit can exist without the physical, but not the other way around. When the spirit tangibly interacts with the physical what is experienced is called a "miracle." Like if the gamer decided to install a new version of the game with added content. It would suddenly just "be there" and to the people inside the game would it appear to be a kind of magic. When actually it's just a simple process through a certain technology that exists outside of their frame of reference.
apologies is this has already been discussed.
i came across this website www.
is this a new splinter group among jw's?.
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
That's it: I'm out.
Adam, you have engaged in the fallacy fallacy. Enjoy the victory in your mind, it must be sweet.
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
You ARE aware of the definition of delusion: "a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness"?
Hence you've just admitted that creating and supporting delusions is a higher priority to you than determining reality.
I am against supporting delusions, I am for freedom of expression and thought.
So, the answer to my question above (about learning the lesson of the dangers of chasing fantasies which you believe as reality in your own mind) is, "NO", you HAVEN'T learned that lesson.
I'm willing to accept that's what you believe.
You apparently don't understand that as much as you or anyone else wants to BELIEVE God exists, it won't actually happen, right? It's not like in the story of Peter Pan, where a fairy actually dies whenever an adult says fairies don't exist?
It's very much like Peter Pan, actually.
The REAL fallacy is thinking that there is a being who HAS objective and absolute standards of reality, so if we all only follow HIS wishes, we'll be OK. That's delusional...
God is the only TRUE reality, everything else is but an image.
Speaking of conventions, you might want to check the commonly-accepted definition of the word, 'fact', since you're abusing it, as if you seem to think everybody is entitled to their own facts (you use it as if it's a synomym for 'opinion')? The Moon is verifiably proven and KNOWN to exist as a FACT: in comparison, the claim that God exists is NOT a verifiable FACT, and you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
Everybody IS entilted to their own facts, it's called freedom and it's a God-given right.
For one, I don't find 'evil' to be a particularly useful concept; it's far too simplistic of a concept (the dualistic 'bad/good' concept from Zorasterian beliefs is thought-limiting), and hence it's a "garbage-can" adjective.
That, to me, sounds like a licence to act evilly.
But that aside, humans force others to accept commonly-accepted definitions of reality all the time, eg have you not driven on the highway and noted those speed limit signs? Or do you argue with the cop that his idea of the speed limit and yours is just different, so you refuse the speeding ticket?
I would, but the cop has a gun and is backed by the State, which I honor.
That textbook contains agreed-upon standards
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! That's funny. "Agreed upon." Don't look now... people have AGREED! LOLOLOL... You know the governing body agree on what is printed in the Watchtower? And people "study" that too. Follow the money.
Wow, how confusing it must be for you, ironically trapped in the mire of relativism, but chasing after absolutes? The fallacy is thinking that ABSOLUTE standards exist, rather than accepting that they don't.
There is no objective reality, therefore there are no absolute standards. You even said so yourself: "facts are not set in stone" do you recieve "new light" from your academic overlords?
Religion MAY HAVE been the best-known science available in the ancient world 3,000 years ago, and it represented the best-available means to explain certain natural phenomena at the time, but science has moved WELL-BEYOND religion since at least Galileo (if not 2,000 yrs before), and anyone who clings to supernatural beliefs and superstition in this day and age is simply arguing AGAINST copious amounts of counter-evidence.
Correction, Science claims to have moved past Religion, even though it never gives any definite explanations. People have agreed! LOLOLOLOL
LOL! So you're against the idea of separation of church and State, then? You probably are just as unaware of your Nation's historical foundation, if you don't know WHY they decided combining theology with politics was a fundamentally BAD IDEA.
Church and state should not have been separated. We are finding that out the hard way, unfortunately.
So, no one can claim that Sauron of Tolkien's LOTR is a bad character and a poor role model to follow, since he's only a character?
You can't put a fictional character on trial. A fictional character cannot inflict harm to society. A fictional character is neither guilty or innocent.
Nonsense: the problem is that people BELIEVE in God, and BELIEVE in the concept of God; the problem is NOT that God himself is real and can be put on trial! Your argument is absurd, and deserves dismissal out of hand, just on it's face value, alone.
People believe in God because God is real. Your frivolous lawsuit is thrown out of court. If you don't to believe, you don't have to. Isn't that a wonderful privilege?
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
I can't speak for the others but, but your damn right the concept of god is on trial, and rightly so!
What if God cannot be fully conceived? Given what we've found so far it's likely that God IS inconceivable. I do not believe such a trial could or should exist. We would first need to fully identify the defendent which, so far, can be described as, "that shadowy figure over there who probably doesn't exist."
Because the Torah is just a story, the character cannot be "put on trial." What can be done is an a moral assessment based on the actions of the character in the story. When doing this one discovers that the character IS righteous, just and faithful. It is ONLY when you have an agenda do you conclude otherwise.
I refuse to be a victim of this god delusion any longer, and thousands are waking up everyday to this delusion.
The fact that you see believers in God as "victims" shows more about your point of view than the believers themselves.
This delusion is what allows groups like the JW's to flourish.
If that were true then the Watchtower wouldn't need to go extrabiblical in order to control their masses. If fact, they would need no Bible at all, just the concept of God would be sufficient. Except, what's really taking place is that a natural human tendency is being exploited. Our tendency to believe in higher powers. Mere belief in God, however, is not enough to control someone, which is why elaborate systems of mind control are needed to suppliment the original emotional tug. People can believe in God in their own way and on their own time which is the best way to do it, really. But, here comes people like you, ready to call them fools for believing in nonsense. Putting us all in one pot while stoking the fire underneath. Developing social taboos against people who do what people have always done. That's the nonsense, right there.
As long as the confusing dogma of the bible/Quran et all is allowed to go unchallenged the more we are held back as a species from reaching our true potential.
Oh, bother. What's keeping society at a standstill is lack of transparency. It's the secrets that hinder us! Not our holy books.
I think discussing this freely and openly and putting the information out there in an uncensored way is the best way for readers to draw their own conclusion. So no it's not paradoxical in the least; the concerpt of god has caused and continues to cause great harm, just look at the rats nets that is the middle east, and the crazy ideas of fundy christians that get us tied up in proxy holy wars.
I agree that we need to discuss it, but calling it a trial makes it a paradox. God is NOT on trial because he CAN'T be on trial. Ironnically that's exactly what the Watchtower teaches. They say that God's universal sovereignty is in question. Then they look at you and see someone questioning God's universal sovereignty by saying he doesn't exist (AND that if he did he doesn't have a right to rule). You are playing right into their hand! The truth is that God's rule is NOT, and never has been, in question. That idea has always existed soley in our minds. Who's really the progressive thinker here? You or I?
God exists in scripture because smart men realized this was the most effective tool to keep the masses subjugated, and they have done a damn good job of it. Case in point: In medieval europe if you dared to defy your peasanthood, and come up, you were going against gods divine plan and risked being put to death for having the audacity to use your brain to advance yourself beyond your station.
So that's why the God of the Torah is evil? Because the original writers made him that way on purpose? To decieve us into becoming their little minions? The exact opposite is true. Humans observed their reality, saw suffering, and sought to make it a better place. That's what you find in scripture, if you choose to LOOK.
Perhaps you should ask yourself what other burdens would be lifted if you would have the audacity to take the next step and stop groveling to the concept of a personal god who cares who really isn't there. Just think, 2,013 years and the big fat jesus sacrifice cheque has done absolutely nothing to make everything a perfected utopia without a peep from your god. All he's left you is a book of riddles that no one can agree on.
Are you offering me a free home Bible study? Because, I'm not interested.
at that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
Then you are a hypocrite when you accept any benefit that has been won through science.
Sentence not makes sense, Cofty
