Post Reply
Page 14 of 17  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Christianity is so silly.
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:23AM #131
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Jul 12, 2012 -- 9:15AM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.



And I suppose you have objective evidence of this.  There are people in this world today who want a fertilized cell to be called sentient while any animal who can reason and act with a theory of mind and can identify "self" (such as the mirror test) are to be excluded, even though there's more reason to suggest the latter are sentient than some cell without even a basic nervous system.  The thing is, unless you are some dog's shrink, you cannot say what they believe.


My dogs are independent selves with their own desires and preferences.  They think differently.  They can feel put out when they feel you aren't doing your job relationship-wise.  They won't be writing epic poetry any time soon, but neither can a lot of people and the fact they have selves is good enough for me.




I've spent my entire life around dogs, and currently own three.


First, you're failing to grasp the differnce between sentience and sapience. 


Secondly, you're givng dogs way too much credit. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:31AM #132
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:21AM, G.flower wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:15AM, mytmouse57 wrote:





I well versed in mental illness. I have a mentally ill son.


Mental illness is just another example of "hardware" malfunction, IMO. Increasingly, they are linking mental illness to disorders in the brain. 


I think sapience is its own proof. There's no sensible reason for it to exist, from a purely bioloigcal/evolutionary standpoint. If fact, taken from that view, it actually causes a myriad of problems, and impedes the species. Think, environmental degredation, mechanized warfare and thermonuclear weapons.


 Therefore, I think, it's transcendent reason for existing is evident. It's a powerful force all its own.


Also, the potential of humans to transcend thier biology or mere intelligence in the animal sense is just that -- potential. It's something you have to work at. And I think all religion teaches that, monotheisic or not. 





I'll just keep pointing this out. You cannot prove there is a soul. Don't you see how you base everything on that and it cannot be proven? Sapience is wisdom but you are trying to say that it is something all humans have and animals don't. It isn't true.


Wisdom has EVERY reason to exist. The smarter an animal (and we are animals) is the better chance they have for survival and the better they are at being in a social group, working together. You also see that in animals. Give me a smart dog every time.




Widsom is proof of the soul insofar as it is an effect. That's what I'm trying to point out to you. Why do you think all the religions (including that Pagan traditons from which your own religions springs) are always talking about an inward journey.


Christ said: "The Kingdom of Heaven lies within you."


One of my favorite passages of Baha'i Scripture states,


"Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting." 


I'm sure, the Wiccan tradition has similar sayings. 


Are you getting it now? You're assuming, I'm thinking of the "soul" as some sort of quasi-physical entity, for which one must find evidence or proof of location, mass, whatever.


That's not at all what I'm saying. 


And when people attribute so much to animals, I question how much time they've actually spent around animals. 


Animals can't get credit or be held to blame. They just are. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:32AM #133
G.flower
Posts: 3,194

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:27PM, mainecaptain wrote:



Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:




Intelligence, in the basic form, is common between man and animal.


Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.


The biology is merely the "hardware" so to speak. If my iPod breaks, does Pink Floyd's music cease to exist? If I mirror reflecting the sun is shattered, is the sun affected in any way?


I find polytheism to be ultimately untennable. "Gods" in the sense I think you describe them would also need a cause greater than or outside themselves.


In order to be an uncaused cause of everything else, a Creator would have to be perfectly simple (non-composite), unique, utterly singular and self-subsisting. It would further stand to reason that such a being, force or entity would be both far too vast and too subtle for the human mind to grasp or conceptionalize. 


Therefore, he who tries to imagine a full grasp of "God," likey is worshiping his own imagination. 




No one said anything about grasping YHVH, and you god is no more a big deal then any other god, if gods are created, your god too was created. Prove otherwise.


Polytheism actually makes more sense then monotheism if you actually observe the world. Clearly there is not one all powerful god, because if there is, this world proves he is evil to the core.


You just don't like the idea that others have more gods, and that some actually communicate with their people. That is sad.





I never said anything about YHVH. Why do you assume I acknolwedge the Biblical concept of God as the only "God?"


That's a concept or image of "God." All said concept or images are just as invalid as they are valid. Allah, YHVH, The Great Spirit, Braman, the gods of the various pagan pantheons -- all the same, and yet, all merely attempts to put a name to something beyond names. 


If I go outside during the winter, and see a fluffy substance coming down out of the clouds, I see it as one thing, and call it by one name. A person on some cultures in the Artic will see it as many things, and call it by many names.


Which of us is correct? We both are.


Which of us is going only by his perception and learned ideas, and therefore, in the objective sense, wrong? Again, we both are. 


Do you understand now? Please, quit assuming YHVH is "my" God. There is no "my" or "your" or "their" God/gods from my perspective. 




On a Christian board, which we are on, God is traditionally the Christian god. If you wish to use the term in a non-traditional manner then have the courtesy to define it. Name your god, it is that simple.


I strongly disagree that all 2000+ gods in this world are just another name for your god. I have my UPG and you have yours on this and I will, of course, listen to my gods on the matter rather than you.


From my perspective, I think that you are unaware of how inexperienced you are and may never learn differently, since you cling your your religion's dogma. If you were more experienced in the ways of gods, knew more gods personally, you would realize your mistake but your conclusions are based, I realize on limited experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:35AM #134
Paladinsf
Posts: 3,660

"If fact, taken from that view, it actually causes a myriad of problems, and impedes the species. Think, environmental degredation, mechanized warfare and thermonuclear weapons."


Hans Morgenthau subjected that position to trugent critcism.


He devoted one entire class to the proposition that WWI seen from an historical persepctive was a good thing. He defied any of us to refute it. No one could. The only real objection was a purely subjective one. It wasn't worth the cost.


And he defeated that one by pointing out it would only have been true for the contemporaries.


Human progress is not pretty, orderly, or peaceful. It is hard often violent work and has many 1 step forward 2 backward periods. But over the long term we and our lives are getting better; both physically and morally.

The World is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe.
The belief in supernatural religion will kill us all if we don't outgrow it.

When I first read "End of Faith" I thought Sam went too far. The more I read and listen to these "believers" the more I wonder if maybe he wasn't right after all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:35AM #135
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:31AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:21AM, G.flower wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:15AM, mytmouse57 wrote:





I well versed in mental illness. I have a mentally ill son.


Mental illness is just another example of "hardware" malfunction, IMO. Increasingly, they are linking mental illness to disorders in the brain. 


I think sapience is its own proof. There's no sensible reason for it to exist, from a purely bioloigcal/evolutionary standpoint. If fact, taken from that view, it actually causes a myriad of problems, and impedes the species. Think, environmental degredation, mechanized warfare and thermonuclear weapons.


 Therefore, I think, it's transcendent reason for existing is evident. It's a powerful force all its own.


Also, the potential of humans to transcend thier biology or mere intelligence in the animal sense is just that -- potential. It's something you have to work at. And I think all religion teaches that, monotheisic or not. 





I'll just keep pointing this out. You cannot prove there is a soul. Don't you see how you base everything on that and it cannot be proven? Sapience is wisdom but you are trying to say that it is something all humans have and animals don't. It isn't true.


Wisdom has EVERY reason to exist. The smarter an animal (and we are animals) is the better chance they have for survival and the better they are at being in a social group, working together. You also see that in animals. Give me a smart dog every time.




Widsom is proof of the soul insofar as it is an effect. That's what I'm trying to point out to you. Why do you think all the religions (including that Pagan traditons from which your own religions springs) are always talking about an inward journey.


Christ said: "The Kingdom of Heaven lies within you."


One of my favorite passages of Baha'i Scripture states,


"Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting." 


I'm sure, the Wiccan tradition has similar sayings. 


Are you getting it now? You're assuming, I'm thinking of the "soul" as some sort of quasi-physical entity, for which one must find evidence or proof of location, mass, whatever.


That's not at all what I'm saying. 


And when people attribute so much to animals, I question how much time they've actually spent around animals. 


Animals can't get credit or be held to blame. They just are. 





Can you give me a definition for a soul?  Seriously. I don't give much creedence to their existence, simply because no one can seem to agree on exactly what a soul consists of.



Well, that, and the fact that the notion of souls was use as a reason the white man was better than the Indians and the Blacks back in the day. There was an argument that said Blacks had to be enslaved because they had no souls and therefore didn't know right from wrong.


I have a hard time believing in something that can so easily be used to oppress others.

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:38AM #136
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:32AM, G.flower wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:27PM, mainecaptain wrote:



Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:




Intelligence, in the basic form, is common between man and animal.


Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.


The biology is merely the "hardware" so to speak. If my iPod breaks, does Pink Floyd's music cease to exist? If I mirror reflecting the sun is shattered, is the sun affected in any way?


I find polytheism to be ultimately untennable. "Gods" in the sense I think you describe them would also need a cause greater than or outside themselves.


In order to be an uncaused cause of everything else, a Creator would have to be perfectly simple (non-composite), unique, utterly singular and self-subsisting. It would further stand to reason that such a being, force or entity would be both far too vast and too subtle for the human mind to grasp or conceptionalize. 


Therefore, he who tries to imagine a full grasp of "God," likey is worshiping his own imagination. 




No one said anything about grasping YHVH, and you god is no more a big deal then any other god, if gods are created, your god too was created. Prove otherwise.


Polytheism actually makes more sense then monotheism if you actually observe the world. Clearly there is not one all powerful god, because if there is, this world proves he is evil to the core.


You just don't like the idea that others have more gods, and that some actually communicate with their people. That is sad.





I never said anything about YHVH. Why do you assume I acknolwedge the Biblical concept of God as the only "God?"


That's a concept or image of "God." All said concept or images are just as invalid as they are valid. Allah, YHVH, The Great Spirit, Braman, the gods of the various pagan pantheons -- all the same, and yet, all merely attempts to put a name to something beyond names. 


If I go outside during the winter, and see a fluffy substance coming down out of the clouds, I see it as one thing, and call it by one name. A person on some cultures in the Artic will see it as many things, and call it by many names.


Which of us is correct? We both are.


Which of us is going only by his perception and learned ideas, and therefore, in the objective sense, wrong? Again, we both are. 


Do you understand now? Please, quit assuming YHVH is "my" God. There is no "my" or "your" or "their" God/gods from my perspective. 




On a Christian board, which we are on, God is traditionally the Christian god. If you wish to use the term in a non-traditional manner then have the courtesy to define it. Name your god, it is that simple.


I strongly disagree that all 2000+ gods in this world are just another name for your god. I have my UPG and you have yours on this and I will, of course, listen to my gods on the matter rather than you.


From my perspective, I think that you are unaware of how inexperienced you are and may never learn differently, since you cling your your religion's dogma. If you were more experienced in the ways of gods, knew more gods personally, you would realize your mistake but your conclusions are based, I realize on limited experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree.





My religion's "dogma" is an independent investigation of the truth, taking an emperical approach, and employing one's reason and intelligence.


"...see with thine own eyes, and not the eye of othes. And thou shalt know of thine own knowledge, and no through the knowledge of thy neighbor."


How much do you know about the Baha'i Faith?


Secondly, again, the term "your" God makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, I find it completely offensive. It's like saying, "you breathe your air, I'll breathe mine."


Again, I see no "yours, mine, ours or theirs" in God. Don't you see? From where I am, that is complete nonsense. 


Agree to disagree, indeed, we will probably have to.


And "God" is just a word. We are limited by language, which comes up against serious problems when trying explain what is beyond our grasp.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:38AM #137
G.flower
Posts: 3,194

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:31AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:21AM, G.flower wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:15AM, mytmouse57 wrote:





I well versed in mental illness. I have a mentally ill son.


Mental illness is just another example of "hardware" malfunction, IMO. Increasingly, they are linking mental illness to disorders in the brain. 


I think sapience is its own proof. There's no sensible reason for it to exist, from a purely bioloigcal/evolutionary standpoint. If fact, taken from that view, it actually causes a myriad of problems, and impedes the species. Think, environmental degredation, mechanized warfare and thermonuclear weapons.


 Therefore, I think, it's transcendent reason for existing is evident. It's a powerful force all its own.


Also, the potential of humans to transcend thier biology or mere intelligence in the animal sense is just that -- potential. It's something you have to work at. And I think all religion teaches that, monotheisic or not. 





I'll just keep pointing this out. You cannot prove there is a soul. Don't you see how you base everything on that and it cannot be proven? Sapience is wisdom but you are trying to say that it is something all humans have and animals don't. It isn't true.


Wisdom has EVERY reason to exist. The smarter an animal (and we are animals) is the better chance they have for survival and the better they are at being in a social group, working together. You also see that in animals. Give me a smart dog every time.




Widsom is proof of the soul insofar as it is an effect. That's what I'm trying to point out to you. Why do you think all the religions (including that Pagan traditons from which your own religions springs) are always talking about an inward journey.


Christ said: "The Kingdom of Heaven lies within you."


One of my favorite passages of Baha'i Scripture states,


"Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting." 


I'm sure, the Wiccan tradition has similar sayings. 


Are you getting it now? You're assuming, I'm thinking of the "soul" as some sort of quasi-physical entity, for which one must find evidence or proof of location, mass, whatever.


That's not at all what I'm saying. 


And when people attribute so much to animals, I question how much time they've actually spent around animals. 


Animals can't get credit or be held to blame. They just are. 




Well, no we don't talk about an inward journey. Why should we? No we don't have any sayings like that. Again, the question was what's rational about your religion. If you keep pointing to a soul for which there is no proof, you are starting with the magical unicorn, remember?


I've spent a great deal of time around animals. Yes they do get to take credit, and they do get blamed for stuff they do when it isn't what they are supposed to do and they know it. Sometimes they get credit for going way beyond the call of duty and if you want examples of that I will be glad to supply them. Each one is different, some are really dumb, some very smart, like human animals. 


Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:43AM #138
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Paladinsf wrote:


"If fact, taken from that view, it actually causes a myriad of problems, and impedes the species. Think, environmental degredation, mechanized warfare and thermonuclear weapons."


Hans Morgenthau subjected that position to trugent critcism.


He devoted one entire class to the proposition that WWI seen from an historical persepctive was a good thing. He defied any of us to refute it. No one could. The only real objection was a purely subjective one. It wasn't worth the cost.


And he defeated that one by pointing out it would only have been true for the contemporaries.


Human progress is not pretty, orderly, or peaceful. It is hard often violent work and has many 1 step forward 2 backward periods. But over the long term we and our lives are getting better; both physically and morally.





I would agree, we are progressing.. despite all the noise and mess.


I appreciate your optimism. I ultimately have no use for fatalism or gloom and doom.


In retrospect, WWII was, sadly, preventable. England and the other major powers saw Hitler as the  lesser of two evils, so to speak, so they kind of turned a blind eye. As it was, they didn't like him, but appreciated the "buffer" he was putting between them and the "Reds" in Communist Russia.


Ultimately, a terrible miscalculation.


Although, to his credit, Hitler was stupid enough to start a war with the Russians, which made the Western Allies' job much easier. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:43AM #139
G.flower
Posts: 3,194

Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:38AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:32AM, G.flower wrote:


Jul 12, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:27PM, mainecaptain wrote:



Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:




Intelligence, in the basic form, is common between man and animal.


Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.


The biology is merely the "hardware" so to speak. If my iPod breaks, does Pink Floyd's music cease to exist? If I mirror reflecting the sun is shattered, is the sun affected in any way?


I find polytheism to be ultimately untennable. "Gods" in the sense I think you describe them would also need a cause greater than or outside themselves.


In order to be an uncaused cause of everything else, a Creator would have to be perfectly simple (non-composite), unique, utterly singular and self-subsisting. It would further stand to reason that such a being, force or entity would be both far too vast and too subtle for the human mind to grasp or conceptionalize. 


Therefore, he who tries to imagine a full grasp of "God," likey is worshiping his own imagination. 




No one said anything about grasping YHVH, and you god is no more a big deal then any other god, if gods are created, your god too was created. Prove otherwise.


Polytheism actually makes more sense then monotheism if you actually observe the world. Clearly there is not one all powerful god, because if there is, this world proves he is evil to the core.


You just don't like the idea that others have more gods, and that some actually communicate with their people. That is sad.





I never said anything about YHVH. Why do you assume I acknolwedge the Biblical concept of God as the only "God?"


That's a concept or image of "God." All said concept or images are just as invalid as they are valid. Allah, YHVH, The Great Spirit, Braman, the gods of the various pagan pantheons -- all the same, and yet, all merely attempts to put a name to something beyond names. 


If I go outside during the winter, and see a fluffy substance coming down out of the clouds, I see it as one thing, and call it by one name. A person on some cultures in the Artic will see it as many things, and call it by many names.


Which of us is correct? We both are.


Which of us is going only by his perception and learned ideas, and therefore, in the objective sense, wrong? Again, we both are. 


Do you understand now? Please, quit assuming YHVH is "my" God. There is no "my" or "your" or "their" God/gods from my perspective. 




On a Christian board, which we are on, God is traditionally the Christian god. If you wish to use the term in a non-traditional manner then have the courtesy to define it. Name your god, it is that simple.


I strongly disagree that all 2000+ gods in this world are just another name for your god. I have my UPG and you have yours on this and I will, of course, listen to my gods on the matter rather than you.


From my perspective, I think that you are unaware of how inexperienced you are and may never learn differently, since you cling your your religion's dogma. If you were more experienced in the ways of gods, knew more gods personally, you would realize your mistake but your conclusions are based, I realize on limited experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree.





My religion's "dogma" is an independent investigation of the truth, taking an emperical approach, and employing one's reason and intelligence.


"...see with thine own eyes, and not the eye of othes. And thou shalt know of thine own knowledge, and no through the knowledge of thy neighbor."


How much do you know about the Baha'i Faith?


Secondly, again, the term "your" God makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, I find it completely offensive. It's like saying, "you breathe your air, I'll breathe mine."


Again, I see no "yours, mine, ours or theirs" in God. Don't you see? From where I am, that is complete nonsense. 


Agree to disagree, indeed, we will probably have to.


And "God" is just a word. We are limited by language, which comes up against serious problems when trying explain what is beyond our grasp.




LOL I also am completely offended by your thinking that I'm too stupid to know that I am really worshipping your god and also that my gods are lying to me. I thought I would give you a pass though.


My religion is also based upon UPG and our sole goal is to develop personal relationships with our gods.


Ed to add: Not quite true, we also strive to follow the Five Points and learn, grow as humans.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 12, 2012 - 10:45AM #140
Paladinsf
Posts: 3,660

"Animals can't get credit or be held to blame. They just are. "


Apparently you have never seen a puppy who has just made a "mistake" on the carpet.

The World is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe.
The belief in supernatural religion will kill us all if we don't outgrow it.

When I first read "End of Faith" I thought Sam went too far. The more I read and listen to these "believers" the more I wonder if maybe he wasn't right after all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 14 of 17  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook