Religion

[CaptainBubba]

Forget it. Lol.

[O71394658]

You just don't get it, my friend.

[CaptainBubba]

Irony.

[O71394658]

You'll get nothing but the PROPOSED. What you see as PROPOSED, I see as ACTUAL.

[CaptainBubba]

exactly. You're confusing your opinion with fact.

[The_Rorschach]

Leave it Q, Bubba lives in an enchanted little world of his own devising. Anyone who believes they have the truth of a question which has plagued man for a few thousand years is either overweened on arrogance, or simply mad.

[CaptainBubba]

I haven't provided an answer to any question. You are truly, honestly being an idiot and attempting to make my statements into something ignorrant.

Plus your statement is incredibly flawed. Plenty of questions that have plagued man for thousands of years have been answered. eeven though, as I said before, I'm not stating any answer. Nor am I attempting to disprove anything. I'm merely showing the fallacy in asuming theres any true reason to beleive in any particular religion or anything "supernatural".

[The_Rorschach]

[CaptainBubba]

[Perndog]

I'd like to jump in this thread to voice my opinion that there's not only no empirical (that is a key word) reason to believe in anything supernatural, there is also no empirical reason not to. We all have our own reasons for what we believe, whether it's church brainwashing, lights in the sky, personal reflection, or whatever.

That said, my position is: fuck all forms of worship, especially evangelical ones and organized ones. But I'm they can be perfectly justified in believing what they want. They just better keep it to themselves.

[O71394658]

I'm merely showing the fallacy in asuming theres any true reason to beleive in any particular religion or anything "supernatural".

You're showing no fallacy at all. You're just bitching and moaning. There are many reasons as to why I believe what I believe. None of it entails "assumption", but faith. For the atheist, they may look similar. For me, they aren't even close.

You're asking a stupid question. You're looking for an answer. I'm giving you one. If you don't like my answer, I suggest you find out for yourself. And the best way to do that?

[Vibecrewangel]

Does anyone else agree with me that they are, just like the rest of the f'n world, arguing over nothing but words.

Yes, we as humans do completely understand it. We know/understand/grok that there is something out there. I am pretty damn sure we even know what it is. Of that I have absolutly no doubt. The problem comes when we try to put into words that understanding. Language, culture, where and when someone existed along with many other factors are all going to play a part in how each person describes that something.

I just love people that talk about the "meaning" when discussing religious text. I find it so laughabale that they talk about understanding the "meaning" yet they get caught up in (for example) the "Jesus is my saviour and the only path to God" words. Every religion has their "only path to God" words. Strip down the cultural refferences and names and the MEANING is the same for all of them. Science and philosophy are just other ways with other words to describe the same thing.

If 1000 people from all over the world were asked to look at a piece of art and describe it to others do you think the descriptions and interpretations would be the same? The piece of art is the piece of art. They all see the same thing. But when they talk about it, language and culture and personal feelings will play a part in how they describe it to other people. Thus, different words to describe the same thing.

People accept a certain religion or science or philosophy because for whatever reason the words used to describe the events make sense to them personally. The problem is that most people don't look beyond the words to the meaning anymore. Pretty much clear across the board from, science to religion, we have lost our own personal understanding...our own sense of meaning. People need to start looking within again and find that. Go out and have a true "religious experience" or "an epiphany" or what ever you want to call it. Choose the wording that most suits you but don't expect everyone else too pick the same one.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

If 1000 people from all over the world were asked to look at a piece of art and describe it to others do you think the descriptions and interpretations would be the same? The piece of art is the piece of art. They all see the same thing. But when they talk about it, language and culture and personal feelings will play a part in how they describe it to other people. Thus, different words to describe the same thing.

Language is an inadequate pair of culture-colored glasses. I think I'm starting to think like you Vibe and it's kind of scary.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

So putting faith in my brakes that they will not fail at a particular moment is intellectual bankruptcy? If anything, your post is nothing but that, and somehow resulted in you feeling like you actually said something meaningful and intelligent.

Their are all kinds of examples of mathematical faith. The mathematical imaginary integer "i", for instance. Not real but used in advanced mathematics on a continual basis.

[Vibecrewangel]

Language is an inadequate pair of culture-colored glasses. I think I'm starting to think like you Vibe and it's kind of scary.

That makes me happy.


It's funny....it just seems so obvious and yet we all overlook it for the most part.

[Sethomas]

Being fair, that's a flawed observation, Kelly. "i" might not occur in nature, but it corresponds to mathematical principles that can be observed and tested empirically, hence it requires no "faith". It's very real in its presence in oscillations and such.

[kahljorn]

If 1000 people from all across the World ate the same pie, they would all describe it the same. It's still the piece of pie, but some people would like it, some people would not like it. Some people would have allergic reactions and die. Moll's Doors? Perception? Candy?

I have faith that if I jump off a Building gravity will play it's part. One man told me he would fly, he was very convinced of this. His perception was slightly insane. What went wrong when he jumped off a building? His perception didn't make much of a difference, unless our perception of the World made him die(we think he'll die, so he does), but in his perception he went on to another perception(after-life) in which he could fly, as if he never died. Maybe he reincarnated as a bird?

[Big Papa Goat]

I'd like to jump in this thread to voice my opinion that there's not only no empirical (that is a key word) reason to believe in anything supernatural, there is also no empirical reason not to. We all have our own reasons for what we believe, whether it's church brainwashing, lights in the sky, personal reflection, or whatever

You can't have an empirical reason not to believe something, its like proving that something doesn't exist. Unless you prove something that is mutually exclusive, which can't be done in the case of God. But if there is no empirical reason for Him to exist, then logically it can only be assumed that He does not exist. Of course, you can have your reasons for believing such things, as you said.

[CaptainBubba]

You guys are really arrogant to say you are sure you understand god. And ignorant. :/

If you guys are sure that you understand god then the burden of proof lies with you. God can be proven or disproven if he can be understood.

[The_Rorschach]

In regards to evangelical faiths. . .What do you consider Atheists who constantly attempt to sway other there is no God?

I've yet to make a thread, or even see one here at the Mock, trying to convert people to any deistically oriented religion, and yet every other week we are blessed with another harbringer of intellecualism proclaiming there is no God. Personally,I could care less, but I am curious where you would draw the line.

[Vibecrewangel]

Do you think I am arrogant? I don't understand "God" because that word really means very little to me. I however have felt, have touched, have a growing understanding of what I believe some people call God. Other people still will call it all matter and dark matter in the universe. Other may call it the universal conciousness. The fact is I have felt it. Just as I have felt love and hate. Depression and elation. You can try to put all of those things into words, but does it ever really encompass what those feelings do to you as an individual? Could you really explain color to person blind from birth? Does that make color any less real? Try to describe the taste of something to someone who has never tasted it. You can say, for example, it is salty. But what if the word salty hadn't been created?
If you had never learned to speak would that make anything you felt or saw or knew any less real? In reality, though words are important to us they are quite meaningless to everything else around us. When you were a child do you really thing you thought in words or did you think in concepts? Desires? Wants and needs? Words came later as ways to describe these things we already knew. We've all heard it before...Children come into this world knowing everthing. Stop and think about how true that statement really is.

[CaptainBubba]

Ror: Did you even understand my posts? I most certainly am not saying that there is no god. Far from it. The idea of there being no god is just as probable as there being one. It would do you good to actually attempt to understand someones writing before you "heckle" it.

Vibe: Thank god someone finally pulled the trump card of all philosohical debate. Now this thread will end sooner and I won't get so continually frustrated with people completely misinterpreting/ignoring anything I'm trying to say.

[kahljorn]

"You can say, for example, it is salty. But what if the word salty hadn't been created?"

Then you'd drink some water and shake your head! and think in your head, "uga booga drink tink sink!"

"His perception didn't make much of a difference, unless our perception of the World made him die(we think he'll die, so he does), but in his perception he went on to another perception(after-life) in which he could fly, as if he never died. Maybe he reincarnated as a bird?"

ANy response to that? I always wondered if the insane's world's could metaphysically be called an alternate dimension of sorts, in which their are other "Souls and spirits" so to speak. That they aren't really caught in Dilussions of fake invisible people, per se, but that they are experiencing a reality outside of our consciousness.
And if so, is there a set of anatomical rules there as well, does he have to eat there or suffer here? Does dying there put him in a coma, or rip him to another dimension? Does dying here necessarily destroy his existence in another, or does his concsciousness remain.
In effect, that perceptions really are the driving force, and only cause and definition have arranged our structure. That a rock is a rock because it thinks it's a rock, and a human is a human because they think they are a human. Like a gravity pulling molecules or spirit of similar taste together to incarnate as a persona of their individual desires and energy. That negative effects in a lifetime are prearranged and ordained by scripted confliction of said energies(some may gravitate as a human towards being an astronaut, some as a vetrenarian, so the confliction causes certain negative effects, and not just the obvious career decision, but the entire path).
Christian's go to heaven or hell, buddhists are reincarnated till they reach enlightenment and cease to exist but their energies depart and gather anew(rebirth!) until the density of buddha enlightened energies reach the point that all creation is in bliss and the entire buddhist universe is rebirthed as well and simply ceases here, and hindus eat rocks with einstein and laugh at how rivers flow upside-down.

[UtterParadox]

Looking through Bubba's posts in this thread, I notice that of the approximentally (sp?) 19 or so "valid" arguments against him, he's refuted about 6. The others he's answered with insults or by harping a variation on "You MISUNDERSTOOD me! Read it again, read it again!"

By sheer virtue of uncountered arguments, the believers are winning this debate.

And yes, Vibe, at the core, everything's a discussion about language... but is that the point here?

[Vibecrewangel]

Bubba - Um what? Trump card?

Paradox - The point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to talking about God, existance, the nature of the universe, life.....people are TOO caught up in the language and have forgotten the meaning. To me the word God means the same thing as the words Universal Conciousness, they both mean the same thing as a mathmatical equation explaining the existance of the universe (math being just another language)
I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't prove that God exists to an atheist, but I could given the right command of mathmatics prove the creation of the universe with a nice tidy equation. Does it in any way change what we are talking about? Or is it just the language that changes? People are happy to translate from russian, hebrew, latin, german, spanish.....but for some reason just can't seem to move to the next obvious set of translations.

If I point to the ocean and call it water or agua or aquafina or chocolate pudding it shouldn't shouldn't matter. What I call it doesn't change what it is.

A rose by any other name......
I love cliches They really do say the most profound things sometimes.

And for Kahl......you are an odd odd man......an odd salt lickin'.....freak talkin'......strange strange man.