 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 116 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614635 Today 0 Topics 127575 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Love isn't Judgement. - Every time your mother judges a "non-believer" her soul becomes blacker & more cancerous. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My mom says that love is just a emotion that comes and goes and that it is the covenant with the lord that matters. The only soul that seems black is yours. You hate a lot and it is sad. : ( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I harbour no hatred in my soul. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Then why do you say bad things about my mom and use nasty words about her? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The only truly black soul belongs to Isaac Hayes, so don't go around spreading lies!!! Aphex twin is a satanist by the way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
love is NOT just emotion, your mum is wrong |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was under the influence of ACID TECHNO. I am now listening to The Manhattans to syrup my soul to sleep. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You shouldn't do that then because I think you are really a good person. It is my bed time too! Do you think that Aphex Twin reads these messages? Good night! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, if you don't believe in heaven why does it matter if you go there or not? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well dawkins puts his case really well, but he fails to mention any of the good things religion does for people. i personally dont believe in a creator god, but its not relevant to the way i interact with people. what stands out in people are their good virtues. these can be realised along many different pathways, many of which pass through religion. these positive outcomes should not be dismissed. is it even dawkins' business what another person chooses to believe in? he claims it his business because religion clashes with science. why is he so protective of science? it doesnt belong to him. science and religion will continue to exist regardless of any noise that an atheist faction can make. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Whew, there doesn't seem to be one. Aren't you lucky? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
barcode: No human can ever be creative? I believe that apart from the fact that we live in the same society, every human is unique. Every thought and memory is uniquely created just for that person. Arguably most things are /influenced/ by what others have done, but it's still unique for some people. Also, this unique quality is dependant on the current state of the objective world and scientific and technological discoveries. Here on earth right now, there isn't much space for new thinking on a grand scale, because it's all been done before. There's no objective stuff to get inspiration from. If tomorrow a scientist discovered something new in space, then artists varying from book authors to painters could think about its implications and new thoughts would arise. Literally every piece of artwork is a resculpting or reintepretation of a persons perception of the universe, and the logical implications of whatever is being interpreted. But I don't believe it ends there. I do think there can be an unlimited ways of looking at things, and there's always room for originality, and originality is based upon perception anyway.. Some things are more popular because more people identify with it and understand it, like say traveling through a wormhole to avoid the speed of light and travel long distances instead of pondering the implications of a cmputer programming issue. This is all based on knowledge, objective logic and perception. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WHY DOES SOMETHING EXIST INSTEAD OF NOTHING. Can Richard Dawkins answer this question? No he can't, he is as clueless as everyone else |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Humans can be creative, but not in the true sense of the word. As you rightly suggest we can only create using the content of our knowledge and memory, of which the foundations have already been put there by others. There is no other way. The dictionary definition of create in its purest sense is "to bring into being or form out of nothing", but your mind cannot create anything out of nothing. It is a computer, it needs information from which to operate. A scientist cannot possibly discover anything without referencing the wealth of information and knowledge he has already ascertained from others. So although he might fall upon something new, there was no creative impetus on his part leading towards the discovery - discoveries can only be made via a step by step incrementation of knowledge. That's not something out of nothing. Every human is unique, yes, physically, and also in terms of how we outwardly manifest the enormous wealth of knowledge given to us. If you watch children for example, they are almost identical in their behaviour to every impetus, it is only when their wealth of knowledge and experience substantially increases that any sort of personality comes through. Then they appear to be unique, but only because they are referencing from a huge knowledge pool of which its complexity is unlikely to be replicated by another. In more general terms, we are merely templates of eachother, we all have the same emotions, love, fear, hate, anger, jealousy, etc., we are all inescapably molded by society the society we choose to live in, so from that perspective we are merely automatons. Nothing truly creative can arise from that - you can only create from second-hand information. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes I agree. But that's also a matter of degree and level of depth you analyze the creative product with. I didn't invent music, but I can create an original song. It is however at the core only sound, which is based on something I didn't create, but if we go one level higher or deeper or even shallower, nobody has created my exact song, so in that sense it is original. (Including the sounds used, not just the chord progressions and melodies etc) Everything is as you say based on something else, but imo it's a matter of where you look at it from and what context it has that determines how creative it is. When brand new knowledge is discovered, like for instance that the earth is not flat, or the discovery of electricity, those are both groundbreaking discoveries, that can ultimately lead to something brand new in the arts, of which has never been done before on earth and thus is creative, but still based on something. But yeah I agree, something from nothing is impossible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The trouble is that people throw these words around so much, without any real thought, that they become almost redundant in their expression. Language has got so lazy, especially if you watch TV, nearly everything is a thoughtless string of repetitive cliches. The adverts have become more 'original' than the programmes, because they have to be. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't mistake thievery for originality. Also, it is largely because of advertising (not just the overt advertisements on the television) that the language has become so lazy, with its mantric repetition of slogans and commands, it's one of the prime reasons that the English language has been corroded so much. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
his popsci books are amazing - evolution, genetics etc. the whole arch-atheist thing he has going goes a bit too far though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, it's fallen quite a ways since 1066 when those Norman bastards sullied it with their latinate faggotry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
schoolboy errrrorr, Barcode |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There was no English language back in 1066. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I bet he's one of the "guests". Locked out forever. With his nose pressed against the window. Wishing her were still... still... Heathcliff, it's me, your Cathy, I've come home. I´m so cold, let me in-a-your window Heathcliff, it's me, your Cathy, I've come home. I´m so cold, let me in-a-your window. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Olde English is a RetCon. They didn't call it 'Olde English' at the time - it's called that now because it was one of the precursors of the English language. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Old English world for Old English is "Englisc". I think that's a clue! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Too complex to be chance? Monkeys and typewriters, monkeys and typewriters. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah, but who designed the monkeys and the typewriters? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bryan Ferry |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The monkeys I'll believe. There's a strong family resemblance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not at all - that indicates the name was adopted, not the actual language, which is made up of French, Latin, German etc. The great thing about the English language is that it encompasses and assimilates from the other languages it encounters - not that it gets turned into some rudimentary text-speak, or is shaped by teenage fashion victims & marketing executives, where atrocious spelling and almost total ignorance of syntax seems to be the norm these days You'll notice that Old English is heavily Normanic, indicating it came about after the Norman conquest, not before. The last remnants of the language of England pre-English is to be found in Welsh, and even that is half Latin. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You'll notice that Old English is heavily Normanic, indicating it came about after the Norman conquest, not before. You're talking out your ass. But, you're talking English. Good man! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rockenjohnny, you point to the positive effects that religion apparently has on people in a defense against Dawkins' arguments. Two things I object to here: a) It's quite a leap to say that religion, in general, does good for the world. When people do great things in the name of religion, we say that religion is responsible for those good acts. But when people do terrible things in the name of religion, we say that religion isn't responsible; we say that the person perverted the religion, that it's the person who is evil, not the belief system. This is a double standard. We spin things so that religion is in a positive light regardless of the effects it has. If we should praise religion for the acts of Mother Theresa, shouldn't we also condemn religion for 9/11 or the Spanish Inquisition? Religion has the capacity to create both hope and fear, both joy and shame. It's a mixed bag, and you can't have the good without the bad. In the end, it's difficult to say that religion has an overall positive effect on the world. And it's very hard to say whether a person acts as they do because of their religion, or because of their inherent personality and personal choices. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
b) Even if we assume that religion does has a positive effect on our personalities, should that really be a consideration in deciding whether to accept it? Daily injections of morphine might make our lives more enjoyable, but does that mean we ought to go down that path? Aren't there other things to weigh besides happiness--such as truth, or justice? Are you really advocating the acceptance of a belief system simply because it might make us happier, regardless of whether it's true or not? Next, you asked whether it's Dawkins' business what another person chooses to believe in. Dawkins is delivering a speech with his own ideas, just like everyone else at that meeting. I don't recall him suggesting that we infringe on anyone else's rights, or eliminate religious freedom. He has every right to criticize religion, just like every person has the right to criticize any belief system, political ideology or anything else. Day in, day out, religious folks preach on street corners, hand out pamphlets, solicit door to door, and hold nationally televised evangelistic conferences. Dawkins isn't even approaching the volume with which the religious demographic shouts its message. Nor is he being nearly as condemning in his words: he isn't arguing that religious people are evil, or lack morals, or ought to burn in hell for eternity, as so many fundamentalist Christians say of atheists. So to summarize that point, he isn't sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, and is acting fully within his rights. Lastly, you questioned why Dawkins is so protective of science. Well, he's an evolutionary biologist. His entire career is largely based upon evolution. And yet, there are those who would like to see creationism taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. Such people represent an offense to education, science, and intellectual integrity in general. So Dawkins gets bent out of shape about that. Wouldn't you feel the same way? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL Richard posts here as "It_is_a_beaver_ " when he's wasted and wants a bit of fun. whats up rich? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Even if you don't believe in Christianity or another organized religion, isn't it freakin obvious when you walk outside and observe a highly organized system that there is something behind that system? I mean, the systems in nature are so organized and complex that it seems more delusional to say they happened on their own with no help than it is to just give in and say there is probably something higher than me that layed all this out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, big fan of Prof. Dawkins. He can be a bit of a dick though at times. To Glasse...i'm no biologist. but if some kind of creator so intelligent makes these already sophisticated bits of biology, it just makes the whole thing more improbable; your adding to the problem instead of solving it since we haven't yet explained the former. Its like a backdoor escape. Life sort of sorts itself out through nature and the physical constants. And it doesn't even need to be alive at that. Things appear to be well constructed and organised without even having a pulse. take a look at the creation of our planet and the rings around saturn Us humans think we're at the top of the food chain with our intelligence and antibiotics. When in fact, tiny microscopic bits of bacteria are merely using you as a host. They do just fine without you too, however your nothing without them. sorry for the long post |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When I look at the wonders of testicle cancer I think, only Jesus could have designed something so beautiful. Richard Dokkens is a hair metal poofter who knows nothing of Christ. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Excellent lecture. Thank goodness for Richard Dawkins. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well said. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahai i saw a clip "dawkins vs tyson" and had to sample it. I made this very quickly, just meant to be funny :DDD http://www.megaupload.com/?d=88EAHECN enjoy! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, what site can I upload an audio file without signing up and becoming a member. And where you stream it on the site instead of downloading it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What a shitty thing to talk about at TED. Start your campaign and explain it there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I heard one time that it's not Rokken if it's not Dokken. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
