 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 636 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614121 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agnostic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fleetmouse, i'm at an interview right now so i'll get back to you about that. you may want to do a google search for acosmic pantheism, maybe you'll even get a better answer than i could provide. if you're still interested i'll tell you what it means to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you'll find a definition that says it means the world, or cosmos, is ultimately unreal; i think a better word is temporary. acosmic pantheists might also say that "god encompasses all things", which i believe is true, but i use a model that identifies the primary illusion as "separation." i hesitate to use the english word "god," because it doesn't mean to me what it means to most people. so i think the hindu idea "brahman" is more accurate. sorry if this is rushed... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was raised an atheist I guess, got into anti-christianity/nihilism/satanism around 14 which lasted until I was about 18 and I realized what a fool I was. Got into taoism around 18 and a half and I guess I still am, just not that much anymore. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And I'm 22 now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have a question. So you dont see "god" as an individual? This explaination is new to me so excuse my ignorance |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
raised Christian, then Jahova's Witness, aethist around 15, agnostic once i looked the word up in the dictionary. shakablahm! i believe that you can learn a little something from each religion. i also believe that most Chirstians are not really Christians, as they do not follow the basic elements of the bible, and take the nonsenical, mytholgical parts literally. fuckign hell. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
born & raised atheist atheist still, but with an interest in buddhism and taoism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you sure fooled me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
raised christian, born agnostic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
y'proddy scum |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, did I ever say I believed in creationism? I believe it shouldn't be "silenced" or banned, and I believe it deserves to be presented like everything else. also, atheism doesn't exclude belief in a "soul" (though that word has too many religious connections. just disregard those connections, and consider it.. like functionalism, but.. slightly different. I'm not sure it's worth going into). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, if anyone ever tried banning it (or any other opinion, theory, thought or such things), I'd be right up there fighting for its right to.. eh.. stay unbanned. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but that wasn't the first time you got behind something like that... from all your previous arguments, i'd never have doubted you had some kind of religious faith |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it just shouldn't be presented as a science, because it's not. get over it. i'm all for free speech - proper free speech - but come on. there's something called the scientific method and neither creationism nor intelligent design comply with it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I believe it shouldn't be "silenced" or banned," Yes, I agree with this as well. "and I believe it deserves to be presented like everything else." Here's where I begin to differ. It should be allowed to be presented as an idea of how the universe came into existance. It, however should not be presented as science since creationism places itself outside the realm of experimentation, and does not allow for the possibility of falsification. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and what about the spaghetti monster? should we let him be taught as a way the universe came into existance as well? or are we conveniently marginalizing him? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think the ID in the science classroom debate to often gets bogged down with arguments over whether or not god exists. In my mind it is not about that at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do you mean the 'id'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nah, I mean "Intelligent Design". ..wait, is that what you were asking? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Depends on where the teaching is being done. If it is in a class on religious studies, or in a CothFSM sunday school classroom, then absolutely. If it is in a public school science classroom, then absolutely not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah shit, of course. grand :) jus had to clarify that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh dear, this is escalating again.. I think I will answer, though.. I got nothing better to do... may I comment on the spaghetti monster? I won't wait for an answer. the spaghetti monster example is utter bullshit. it is something that falls into a very weird and silly way of reasoning where making fun of your opponent makes you win the discussion. If I remember correctly, it went something like "if you believe in god, you may as well believe in a giant flying spaghetti man!" well.. no, you may not. To a christian there's nothing more evident that god exists; the bible, which he wrote, is accessible to them every day. The nature and people around us, everything we see is evidence of his existence. Nothing, however, points towards a giant flying spaghetti man. I've found this type of "HA HA YOU ARE SILLY I MAKE SILLY EXAMPLE OF YOUR BELIEFS" thingie to be very typical american, actually, though certain british people also have used this "tactic" somewhat frequently. it is a silly tactic, and if you want to convince (I'm not sure if I should use convince or persuade or whatever here.. I mean the word that is positive, and involves presenting arguments and evidence) someone he's wrong, do it by presenting arguments and evidence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I often defend things I don't believe myself, but what have I defended? It may be one of the things I do believe... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you've got it completely wrong. the spaghetti monster is a very clever idea - they're not rubbishing religion. they're rubbishing the idea of entering a non-scientific topic into a science classroom. if intelligent design can be taught in classrooms, with as little scientific evidence for it as there is, then it follows that people should consider teaching the theory of the spaghetti monster in science classrooms, since just as much scientific evidence exists to support it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it is quite an apt example. i can attribute anything to a spaghetti monster or any other god or force you can think of. it's exactly the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there are certain theories that are accepted by scientific communities, though they don't follow the scientific method.. the best example I have is something I picked up at some physics lecture... in recent years, they've discovered that small (really really tiny small) amounts of energy occasionally disappears. At first, this would've led to a complete turnaround and all of modern physics would have to be re-done.. that energy just doesn't disappear is one of the cornerstones of modern physics. However, someone came up with an "explanation." They construced several other dimensions (dimensions in space), and we now have 11 dimensions. The three first (the ones we all know) and the last (time) are the ones humans can percieve and comprehend. The remaining ones can only be comprehended by maths. The theory then goes that the energy doesn't disappear, it just goes into these other dimensions that we can't percieve or comprehend. This is a completely unfalsifiable theory due to the fact that these other dimensions, though they according to the theory, are all around us, are uncomprehensible to us; we would never be able to enter or observe any of these and see if the energy is in them anywhere, and as such, if someone said that they don't exist, they still wouldn't be falsified because they.. well, they'd be kind of like god: no-one can see him because he doesn't want us to, so either proving or disproving him is impossible. In spite of this, this theory is accepted and gaining ground.. to me it just seems like the physics people don't want to have to change their paradigms (or whatever that word is), and just made something up to explain why energy is disappearing. this would also be an example to the error in the definition of a scientific theory; that it should be falsifiable. The definition is too narrow. That up there is in fact a scientific theory, and so is creationism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it is one of the silliest examples ever constructed to make ones opponent seem silly because "he may as well believe in a giant spaghetti monster!" No-one would use this example in a real argument except for cocky assholes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I hate jumping into these things but i will :p spaghetti monster has nothing. Its a silly idea. The Bible speaks of times, people and places that tie into history. Places that exsisted. People that ruled (ceasar). Events. Come on now. Now i am not going to lay out a 8 page summary but lets be serious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, not individual in conventional human terms. alan watts used the term "supreme identity," which appeals to me. i might say metaphorically that a human is a thread, and "god" is the thread from which all other threads derive. a conventional scientific view is that the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is energy, or matter; in this view, the fundamental "stuff" is "consciousness," and matter and energy are aspects of consciousness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cocky assholes present in this thread are exempt from that definition of cocky assholes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*applaudes* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't have time now to read all this (i'll read it later), but i assure you, i'm a cocky asshole. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but, see... you keep using the bible as evidence... but, one has to take the leap that what the bible says is true, before it's words carry much weight. it is a catch 22. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm sorry, that wasn't entirely clear. i meant to contrast my view with a conventional scientific view. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oops, I missed vp's post... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've found this type of "HA HA YOU ARE SILLY I MAKE SILLY EXAMPLE OF YOUR BELIEFS" thingie to be very typical american, actually, though certain british people also have used this "tactic" somewhat frequently. it is a silly tactic, and if you want to convince (I'm not sure if I should use convince or persuade or whatever here.. I mean the word that is positive, and involves presenting arguments and evidence) someone he's wrong, do it by presenting arguments and evidence. You have no idea how bad it is in the US and Canada re: religious fundamentalism. I was just reading that it's getting ugly in England too. Folks are not trying to present creationism and intelligent design as interesting alternatives or parts of the history of science, but as the replacement for the neo-darwinian synthesis. That's dangerous for two reasons - it mingles church and state, and it withholds the best current understanding of nature from young minds. The President of the US believes that Jesus will return soon, and . A couple of years ago one of the likely candidates for Canadian prime minister believed and taught that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark. Maybe in Norway you can afford to play devil's advocate with this shit but over here we're fighting to preserve some semblance of a secular civil society. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
christians of course use the bible as evidence, and faith is all that is demanded of them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there is nothing |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
... but, this is all beside the point anyway. God may very well exist. God may have created the Universe. But, if you are unable to prove his existance reliably through carefully structured experimentation. And conversely, no amount of experimentation that demonstrates to the contrary is accepted by the community as disproving God's existance, then it is simply NOT science. That's just the way that it is. Unless, of course, you change the definition of "science".... which I believe they tried not too long ago in Pennsylvania. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Post your religion..... For what exactly? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you know, interesting discourse, conversation, blah blah... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We're trying to decide who to marry. So far Drunken Mastah, as an argumentative atheist with taoist leanings, looks like the man for me. <3 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
today i saw a huge sign by the road, withe the stars and stripes, and it said "have you remembered to pray for our troops today?". hahaha. this country is so pathetic. i will try to take a pic one day |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
have you remembered to pray for death today? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's not so bad. In my town there's a huge billboard that says "It's time we put our faith back in the government." and the backdrop is a bible sitting on an american flag. THAT scares the shit out of me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow, where abouts? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The corner of Wayah and Depot St. :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh yeah, it must be nice to see a blatant reject of separation of church and state in your neck of the woods, you know what i say? NOT IN MY BACK YARD! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, even the main christian party over here wants to separate church from state... I also believe that is the best thing to do, but I think you should be able to convince those people with reasoning without trying to ridicule them... also, having creationism replace darwinism in history is the silliest thing I've heard of. In that case, I'd defend darwinism, of course.. neither should be banned... and even though you wouldn't have creationism or darwinism taught in bio class, I'm sure you'd agree that they should be represented in history class. Choosing to present one to the exclusion of another is always silly, but of course: one must prioritize, and only main and important theories and their main adversaries should be presented. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
