On 25 May, 02:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > You talk about it all with such affirmation but in all actuality it is > something that you have bought into and choose to believe based on > some written text. What makes you think that book is any different > from any other book, I see no difference between you and a Jehovah > Witness. What makes your belief more believable. There is absolutely > not a shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a god or > supreme being that is a creator of the universe and life. Even if > there was one I don't see why such a great creator would have to say > something through the writings of a bunch of ignorant desert dwelling > sheep and goat herders. There is no evidence of any heaven or hell or > anything that suggests consequential outcomes to action. We suspect > and give in to superstition in fear of it being real when all the time > we know it is false without foundation. >
LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with no cause. There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic viewpoint). Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is it 'without purpose'? How often do you act without purpose? So, again, (y)our own experience seems to point to intelligent beings doing things with purposeful intent. Yet the atheist argument is that this causeless effect is without purpose; yet they feel it is their purpose to point that out. No dichotomy there, oh no! Not even you're own existence stands as any evidence to the committed atheist. As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. Why > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to enjoy > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > kiss god's ass? > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would you > > know? > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained phenomena > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man made "God > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the world > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often find > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as empirical > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this is mass > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on your lack > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing that > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound in > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the believing > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down to > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and greed for > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is not the > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to convince > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain that God > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still evokes > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS just IS > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my window. You > > > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When looking at > > > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is a human > > > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of macro- > > > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and > > > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural world leaves > > > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the point at > > > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is no proof > > > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific proof > > > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create "Myth". > > > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and sacrificial > > > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we have yet to > > > > > let go of the main theme of religious belief. > > > > > Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of the > > > > > unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and the need > > > > > to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a oneness, > > > > > a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, a > > > > > composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe such as the > > > > > ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity and what > > > > > you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, an > > > > > extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny > > > > > resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are > > > > > worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. Why? > > > > > We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This tendency is > > > > > unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history shown in > > > > > anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to this day > > > > > simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit unspeakable > > > > > atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and instill > > > > > guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life. > > > > > > On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 May, 15:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The ball of elaboration is in your court, this is your thread. > > > > > > > You > > > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have anchored > > > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you consider > > > > > > > truths. > > > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be explored > > > > > > > individually. > > > > > > > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching levels > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > redundancy without resolution. > > > > > > > > I'm with Albert Einstein below. > > > > > > > > Borrowed FROM: > > > > > > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008 > > > > > > > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects > > > > > > > illuminated > > > > > > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and > > > > > > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is > > > > > > > confused > > > > > > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. > > > > > > > (Plato, > > > > > > > Republic) > > > > > > > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally > > > > > > > ordered system that is God. > > > > > > > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated > > > > > > > system in which everything is contained. > > > > > > > > To Einstein, “the truth of > > > > > > > the Universe is human truth.” > > > > > > > While I usually support Einstein, here we differ a tad. Einstein > > > > > > went > > > > > > in search of truth and discovered 'relativity'. This discovery > > > > > > flavoured his view of truth, as he discovered the importance of the > > > > > > 'reference point' from within the system. But what if one's > > > > > > reference > > > > > > point is outside the system? The Qur'an states (22:6) 'God is the > > > > > > Reality/Absolute Truth.' The Arabic is "Allah Al-Haqq". It's a > > > > > > statement that is perfectly congruent with the physics I propose > > > > > > and, > > > > > > within it, still allows for the 'Special Relativity' that we > > > > > > experience. The viewpoint is whether or not one is outside or > > > > > > inside > > > > > > the box. Einstein was IN the box whereas Allah IS the box. > > > > > > > > Read More @ > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/8531f4e... > > > > > > > > On May 16, 6:37 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> Thank > > > > > > > > You! > > > > > > > > > > I understand it all very well and did not discredit anything. > > > > > > > > > > I simply recognized a multi-faceted post which needs > > > > > > > > > clarification on > > > > > > > > > some specifics. > > > > > > > > > Only a multi-faceted post can clearly highlight the wholistic > > > > > > > > approach.> Truth IS that Truth is highly subjective even in the > > > > > > > > sense of > > > > > > > > > absolutism, somewhat like absolute "fact". > > > > > > > > > Calling Truth as subjective matter is part of empiricism. Our > > > > > > > > perception about Reality can be quite different from Absolute > > > > > > > > Truth. > > > > > > > > That doesn't mean Absolute Truth does not exist.> The Wow > > > > > > > > really belongs as a pertinence to your own opening thread > > > > > > > > > which covers several issues. > > > > > > > > > All the isues covered in that post are linked to each other. You > > > > > > > > cannot separate one from the other.> We've covered the truth > > > > > > > > issue here many times before so you might > > > > > > > > > consider searching the Minds Eye archives. > > > > > > > > > The problem with agnostics is that they cannot see anything > > > > > > > > beyond > > > > > > > > public opinion or collective opinion. Truth can be (& most of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > times it is) different from collective opinion. > > > > > > > > > > Have a good e-space night! > > > > > > > > > Now again the e-space illusion has come into picture. We are > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > different time zones. What is night for you is a day for me in > > > > > > > > India... > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 8:53 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Wow ! Discrediting anything that you do not understand is a > > > > > > > > > > typical > > > > > > > > > > agnostic position. Your comment, Slip Disc, is quite in > > > > > > > > > > line with that > > > > > > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 4:58 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > You are > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
