Posts that jestervr is monitoring

What about other religions? replied by kookookachoo @ Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:41:20 -0000

kookookachoo — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:41:20 -0000

wink, wink, honey!

What about other religions? replied by emptycalm @ Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:32:22 -0000

emptycalm — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:32:22 -0000

ratboy wrote:
>People these days just want to feel “different”...booze,pot,other drugs…religion…the opiate of the masses some have said…feeling different…

Haha yeah and I love how people discredit other people for doing the same thing :wink:

What about other religions? replied by ratboy @ Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:26:25 -0000

ratboy — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:26:25 -0000

People these days just want to feel “different”...booze,pot,other drugs…religion…the opiate of the masses some have said…feeling different…

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:53:13 -0000

Arandur — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:53:13 -0000

Yeah, I think you’re right, Koo. Anything can be an idol, and willing habitual use of drugs as one’s main focus in life is definitely using it as an idol. However, chemical and behavioral dependency when you now want to get off it is a different matter. Addiction can be a terrible struggle that leaves many feeling helpless even though they want desperately to be free.

What about other religions? replied by kookookachoo @ Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:42:27 -0000

kookookachoo — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:42:27 -0000

But don’t worry, I shake it off like a duck dog shakes off water. I get maudlin about this crap sometimes, right now isn’t one of those times.
But, back on topic. Does anyone think that drugs or alcohol are kinda like idols, i.e. idolatry, to addicts and drunkards? Could it be a religious experience for them, in a way? The 12 step programs (which do work for some) don’t talk about it that way, and they are vaguely christian based. Some people use their faith in god to help them stop, I’ve seen it happen. I mean, alcohol and drugs have been around for awhile. Also, some hallucinogenics have been used in some religions. I don’t think there is any addiction problem there, though. So, any comment?

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 -0000

Arandur — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 -0000

That’s a sad tale, Koo. Everyone seeks happiness, and so many get lost in faux, chemical-induced highs or numbness against the pain they feel. Others get lost in sex, money or possessions, power. Love is all that will satisfy this human need, and I hope more people find it.

What about other religions? replied by kookookachoo @ Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:21:12 -0000

kookookachoo — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:21:12 -0000

Finally able to reply a little more… Aran, again, thank you. You are absolutely right, I witnessed self destruction, no evidence needed. lol
This type of behavior would not just destabilize society, it would kill it. I had a double whammy with the AIDS crisis. Many of my gay friends died (and it was a death sentence back then) plus many of my friends used (and abused) drugs. There was much more danger in the drugs than in unprotected sex. Overdoses, AIDS, hepatitis, deadly staph infections, poisonings plus more. Could I have stopped them? Helped them? Maybe, maybe not, and surprisingly, I don’t feel very guilty about that. Yes, some wanted help and I helped them if I could do so. I was not in much of a position to “help” during many of those years. I can’t tell people what to do. If I do, they go do it anyway, and then they just hide it after that. This is still a major problem in this country. The drugs are out there (so is the unprotected sex). If people want them, it’s just like going to the store for a quart of milk. And don’t even get me started on abuse of prescription drugs. But alcohol can be just as bad. I swear that my friends that were alcoholics were even worse off than the others and that’s legal! When I was much younger, most of my friends drank. If they were to pass on, alcohol was many times involved. In my teens, most young people that died lost their lives in car accidents. It was very common. As I got older, there were many other reasons…

I didn’t mean to go off-topic this much, sorry guys. But we have been hanging out here lately, so hope it’s OK. Thanks again for listening. Ain’t psychology wunnerful?

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:49:22 -0000

Arandur — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:49:22 -0000

“Aran, I don’t see why instinct couldn’t transcend the tribal level. Classic argument, but undeniable; all it would require is time and luck.”
Evolution works at the population level, not across competing populations with little inter-breeding. What do you mean, time and luck?

Instinct: An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli
Reason: The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligenc…the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

Check them out on Dictionary.com. The terms are not compatible or synonymous at all.

Much if not most of science is unproven fact. There is knowledge without touch-taste-and-feel assurance. I’m also not talking about ID in the sense it has been co-opted to mean.

“They merely take it for granted, because they can’t do otherwise.” By this statement I was pointing out the limitations of science and math, since they rely on their assumptions and can’t justify or prove their assumptions. As I tried to explain in surrounding paragraphs, the requirement of science to have a cause or pre-existing form of everything is in direct conflict with the assumptions upon which science must operate: that there is an uncaused element in the universe and that certain things, like thought, have no pre-existing form. By scientific understanding, it’s own assumptions, without the presence of something like God to explain them, violate its own conclusions (that everything must have a cause and pre-existing form).

Specifically with regard to thought, science observes that it is seemingly uncaused and has no pre-existing form, so, like the universe itself, it should not exist.

I tried to explain the last point you mention in its subsequent paragraphs in my previous post. In light of how I phrased the same things above, does it make sense? That science knows that the universe exists and that thought exists because they can be observed, but because of our scientific observation that everything must have a cause and a pre-existant form, and these things don’t seem to, they shouldn’t exist. The mere fact that they do points to the existence of an uncaused, eternally-existant being capable of some form of thought (to account for the existence of thought) to explain the rest of existence. If that being does not exist, nothing should, and science is left with being based on self-contradictory propositions. Science, then, actually assumes the existence of this entity in order to avoid self-contradiction. The single Necessary Being is the ultimate reason and source for all existence, but scientific reasoning, while requiring and acknowledging it, also must recognize that it can do little to describe it, for science is limited to caused, temporal things.

What about other religions? replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:38:39 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:38:39 -0000

Oh… My… Gawd… Long post comming up just now…

“The largest level that it exists at is a population level (a “pack” or “tribe” if you will). Thus if morality grew out of human instinct alone, it should never have risen beyond the tribe level; we should still be small warring tribes, caring nothing for others, with no concept of “universal human rights.”“

Aran, I don’t see why instinct couldn’t transcend the tribal level. Classic argument, but undeniable; all it would require is time and luck.

“We are certainly much more than instinct now. We are capable of self-aware, abstract, rational thought.”

Instinct isn’t rational?

“Holding math and science to be the only kind knowledge or fact, then, is a simple fallacy; that atheistic tenetic is demonstrably in error.”

That’s true… But taking what is unproven as fact is also in error. We can make guesses, but ID is one of the wackier guesses out there, me thinks. Might be true, but chances look low.

“They merely take it for granted, because they can’t do otherwise.”

Duh.

“That is further evidence that they can’t account for the existence of thought, because the universe, by these assumptions, should lack thought utterly in any of its members or creatures.”

How did you come to that conclusion?

“It tells us that our very ability to think and create abstraction and physicality indicates the pre-existence of these things. If anything is, God must be.”

How did you come to that conclusion?

What about other religions? replied by kookookachoo @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:10:19 -0000

kookookachoo — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:10:19 -0000

Aran, rb, thank you for your kind words.

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:27:08 -0000

Arandur — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:27:08 -0000

You can choose not to engage in the intellectual discussion, RB, but dodging and ignoring it just makes your position of atheism one of intellectual laziness, and your assertion that God doesn’t exist laughable, since you won’t back up that assertion. I don’t think you want to be in that position, so I try to engage you in this discussion.

What about other religions? replied by ratboy @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:46:52 -0000

ratboy — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:46:52 -0000

It isn’t the job of non-believers to prove that your god or any others do not exist…Is that the rub?...That atheists won’t acknowledge your particular god…?

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:55:57 -0000

Arandur — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:55:57 -0000

Did you ignore the rest of the post, RB? You can move on, but you do so without refuting anything. As GuitarDrummer has shown, monotheistic beliefs have informed most if not all myths, predating or coinciding with polytheism. Polytheism still recognizes the existence of the divine for the same reasons that monotheism does, but without the clarity provided by centuries of philosophical and scientific investigation that show that only one need exist, and one ultimate must exist, even if there are other “gods.”

What about other religions? replied by ratboy @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:11:43 -0000

ratboy — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:11:43 -0000

God exists,because He must exist?...erm…no…we can move on…monotheism was once” the new thing” over polytheism…yes…time to move on…

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:05:31 -0000

Arandur — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:05:31 -0000

We are certainly much more than instinct now. We are capable of self-aware, abstract, rational thought. This capacity has not been demonstrable anywhere else in existence. How can something come from nothing? We have no precedent, and the atheistic explanation of a universe that just is cannot account for it; in fact, followed logically it would deny that this capacity for thought should exist at all.

Thought is the ability to create ideas spontaneously, new and original, to imagine things. Think about this: where does this thought exist? Sure, brain activity can be monitored by medical instruments, but we have incredibly sensitive tools with which to monitor the most minute forms of energy and matter, and yet we cannot measure thought or explain how it can exist or where it exists. Authors regularly conceive of entire worlds…where do these exist? Man maintains a common concept of law…where does it exist?

Math and science have been entirely unable to describe these or approach these questions. That indicates that there are realms of knowledge and existence that they cannot perceive or delve into. Holding math and science to be the only kind knowledge or fact, then, is a simple fallacy; that atheistic tenetic is demonstrably in error. Knowledge exists beyond these, and to deny that is simply to hypocritically deny a piece of reality while claiming that you are describing all of reality.

If the universe is self-existent, then all of our scientific and mathematical observational experience should tell us that it should not exist at all, because everything we know in these spheres has a cause. Yet it takes abstract thought to conceive of this infinite existence, and it creates the question that science and math can’t answer: where did it start? How can all this matter and energy and thought and time, all ordered as it is in beautiful chaos, exist? Yet at the same time, the human mind is incapable of comprehending how it cannot exist, for the old formula of “I think therefore I am” proves existence, and so existence is obviously True.

As far as I have seen, math and science have been unable to approach a real explanation of an existent universe. They merely take it for granted, because they can’t do otherwise. The same goes for the ordered universe, and the fact that science must assume that it is unthinking (in that the ordered laws of the universe do not think and change themselves).

So math and science can’t account for these principles. That is further evidence that they can’t account for the existence of thought, because the universe, by these assumptions, should lack thought utterly in any of its members or creatures.

Instead, I go back to this previous statement: Our experience (what all scientific knowledge is based on) tells us differently. It tells us that our very ability to think and create abstraction and physicality indicates the pre-existence of these things. If anything is, God must be. I AM WHO AM.

Our experience and scientific patterns of observation show that our thought must come from something at least as great as itself, something that exists outside of space, matter, energy. Whatever this realm is, there is certainly the possibility that more can exist in it. Further, our ability to think abstractly and create things both in the realm of thought (imagination) and our ability to influence our surroundings with our thought (turning things we imagined into reality by manipulating matter and energy) demonstrate that these qualities exist and, because they exist now they must have existed before humans became capable of them, for nothing we know mathematically and scientifically comes from nothing.

Thus all human disciplines of knowledge point to the existence of some being capable, like we, of thinking, of knowing, and of translating this thought and knowledge into at least manipulation of physical matter and energy. It is capable of creating something out of nothing, because our own thought is capable of this same creation.

Reasoning to a deity is then simple, and necessary. It is the thought that pre-existed ours. It is the single thought and being that need necessarily violate the scientific requirements of having a beginning, something giving it rise, because it is the being necessary for the existence of everything that does exist, the being that must be assumed for science to make any predictions or draw any conclusions or exist at all. In this way, science requires the existence of God. God exists, because He must exist.

What about other religions? replied by Arandur @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:03:57 -0000

Arandur — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:03:57 -0000

Koo, I’m glad you’ve made it through to be with us here. We’re lucky enough to live in a time and society where people can discuss these things and have it impact society little, though it does little by little. I don’t mean to judge or sound harsh, but I think the evidence of self-destruction you may have witnessed in your life indicates that such an approach to life would not work for the majority of society; it would destabilize. I offer that as a thought and an indication that something more along the lines of what we Christians look for (that is, ultimate Truth for all mankind) are necessary for human civilization and demonstrate that Truth exists and ought to be pursued.

Finix, instict arises evolutionarily only because it gets passed on because the progenitor survived long enough to reproduce and pass on traits. The largest level that it exists at is a population level (a “pack” or “tribe” if you will). Thus if morality grew out of human instinct alone, it should never have risen beyond the tribe level; we should still be small warring tribes, caring nothing for others, with no concept of “universal human rights.” The rational, abstract extension of these ideas when man became capable of that kind of thought should not have occurred either, since it should have had no validity.

edited into two messages to make it more readable

What about other religions? replied by ratboy @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:37:04 -0000

ratboy — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:37:04 -0000

gawd,kookoo…you are just awesome…hugs…%>)

What about other religions? replied by kookookachoo @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:08:51 -0000

kookookachoo — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:08:51 -0000

Hey, i went nuts, did stupid shit and wound up here, i.e. I never returned. I did grow up, though. It was while I was out being crazy that I realized my atheism. I like my life the way it is. Slow and easy. I’ve been relatively upfront about my life here in these forums. There are certain things I probably wouldn’t admit to here in “relative anonymity”, as Satol said. Take what I have said and use your imagination. You won’t even be close (lol). I’m a happy person. I love life. I don’t need to worry or even care about whether god exists, doesn’t exist, no “order of nature” or whatever. I’m me. I exist here and now. I’m enjoying it all and I am at the prime of my life. Why should any of this philosophical stuff matter? If the order of nature, or something else makes you see a loving god, that god helps you through your life, he’s important to you, hey! enjoy yourself! This is something that’s important to you. You are my friends, I see that this is important to you. I don’t feel exactly that way, but I will defend your faith and your beliefs to my fullest. Just don’t ask me to get anthromorphic or anthropromorphical or whatever the heck you were talking about because I’m not gonna do it. I don’t really care about the details or the philosophy, I know what I know and I do what I do and I also do whatever I want. I am the most hedonistic person that you will probably ever meet in your lives. I am extremely lucky to have lived this long. Many, many of my friends are dead. I’m not kidding, I’ve had to make many new ones in the past twenty years. I count my worth in my friends (and family), I love them and know how much they love me. This is what is important to me. When I am gone, I know that I will be remembered and loved by the people who know me. That is what I will take with me and it completely satisfies me now and will then. This is suddenly very difficult to talk about, I’m sorry about my babbling (again!). Thank you for listening, dear friends.

What about other religions? replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:53:11 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:53:11 -0000

Gaaahhh. It’s not different paths, my friend…how do I explain this? Have you ever picked up a chick in a bar who turned out to be a psycho and whipped out a knife, intending to tear out your throat? Married a high school sweetheart who turned out out be a lesbian? Lived as a crank- snorting, beer- swilling psycho biker? And after all that crazy shit, raised a stepdaughter to become a highly competent, successful corporate- climber?

And, eventually, returned through study and introspection to a life that is ruled by Deity?

A path, Bro. Tread it, if you have the balls. And don’t come whining to me if you can’t hack.

What about other religions? replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:21:04 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:21:04 -0000

“Hate me now, but love me later, Bro- I’m now going to pull the age card. You’re in your teens, or so I remember from our touchy- feely getting to know each other thread.”

I don’t hate you. I just disagree with you.

“Been there, done that. I’ve done shit that, even with the relative anonymity of the ‘net, I would never reveal here.”

Well, then we’re obviously following completely different paths. No shit do-age here.

“Go nuts. Do stupid shit. But, eventually, return.”

Lol. That sounds like very, very bad advice. The “go nuts, do stupid shit” part, not the other bit.

What about other religions? replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:11:34 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:11:34 -0000

Well, good for you if you want to believe that. I, for one, am beginning to think otherwise quite strongly. The words are making much more sense to me on the atheistic side of the fence just now.

Hate me now, but love me later, Bro- I’m now going to pull the age card. You’re in your teens, or so I remember from our touchy- feely getting to know each other thread.

Been there, done that. I’ve done shit that, even with the relative anonymity of the ‘net, I would never reveal here. I came out of about 20 years of shit- crazy insanity that actually, somehow, pointed me towards the belief that there is an inherent beauty in life, given to us by our Creator, and that there is an inherent Law, which we are expected to follow.
Don’t necessarily follow it, now, you’ve got lessons to learn. Go nuts. Do stupid shit. But, eventually, return.

What about other religions? replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:51:18 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:51:18 -0000

“Human instinct is human instinct, but it’s put in us by G-d.”

Well, good for you if you want to believe that. I, for one, am beginning to think otherwise quite strongly. The words are making much more sense to me on the atheistic side of the fence just now.

What about other religions? replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:45:20 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:45:20 -0000

The more I hear about this god fellow, the more he sounds like a personafication of human instinct. (Yeah, I anthro’d him. It doesn’t matter, the point is the same reguardless of how it is said.)

No, dude, understand- you completely fuck up an understanding of G-d when you do that. Human instinct is human instinct, but it’s put in us by G-d. Anthro’ing G-d completely screws up an understanding of His nature.

What about other religions? replied by FiNiX @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:38:23 -0000

FiNiX — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:38:23 -0000

“Why do we believe in those principles of behavior universally, and not just for our “tribe” or “pack?””

These instincts exist for the sake of the survival of humanity as a whole. The tribe mentality improves the chances of human survival greatly.

Try as you might, it’s human nature to think differently of those who speak the same language as you as opposed to those who speak a different language. Of friends as opposed to strangers.

This does not mean that we are incapable of thinking of those who are outside of our group(s), just that we think of them in a different manner.

“God is not needed to know His law because it was already there, predating us, etched in us. Order and existence and natural laws are there because of something.”

The more I hear about this god fellow, the more he sounds like a personafication of human instinct. (Yeah, I anthro’d him. It doesn’t matter, the point is the same reguardless of how it is said.)

“How do you explain the human intellect in the context of a supposedly self-existent, self-ordered, unthinking universe?”

Define “thought” and I’ll give you that.

“It tells us that our very ability to think and create abstraction and physicality indicates the pre-existence of these things.”

Now, how the heck did you come to that conclusion?

What about other religions? replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:23:27 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:23:27 -0000

Yep. Dug it.
Well. The Tetragrammaton is such a badass concept, you pretty much have to lay out the four letters. While rife with meaning, the Word conceals more than it really reveals, doesn’t it?