Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jazman

Joe The Plumber?

Recommended Posts

Sure we haven't seen or heard from this divine being for over 2000 posts, but his teachings live on through the The Holy Trinity; Sao Bento, Govinda and Graymachine.

 

And they're no ordinary Todd, Dick, and Harry ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excuse me for being so naive as to believe in Jesus..you all seem so offended that this is actually possible for a person to do so.

 

so I made it a point not to offend any of you by calling your beliefs idiotic and unrealistic.....i mean I don't really care what you believe...it's your life. The only reason I responded originally was because most of you were so ignorant to another persons opinions that it was hard for me not to say anything. As a Catholic I had to respond.

 

You use your logic, your science to prove the existence that God isn't real.....when I see things every day that points out the opposite. Wether you agree or not I don't care.....like I said, I didn't come here to preach or to change you. All I stated was that I believed in a higher power and this astonished you?

 

You asked for proof I said that the Bible was enough proof, you say this is a fairy tale. Am I to believe that we came from apes, which came from fish, which came from....what? Am I to believe that I don't have a soul? So our brain is a series of chemical reactions or whatever but there's nothing else? If so what makes me different from a tree in the long run? Is it luck that I was born a homosapien and not a blade of grass? Whom am I to thank for this luck? Is there some formula I could work out?

 

I apologize for being naive....but we are all different and have the right to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excuse me for being so naive as to believe in Jesus..you all seem so offended that this is actually possible for a person to do so.

 

so I made it a point not to offend any of you by calling your beliefs idiotic and unrealistic.....i mean I don't really care what you believe...it's your life. The only reason I responded originally was because most of you were so ignorant to another persons opinions that it was hard for me not to say anything. As a Catholic I had to respond.

 

You use your logic, your science to prove the existence that God isn't real.....when I see things every day that points out the opposite. Wether you agree or not I don't care.....like I said, I didn't come here to preach or to change you. All I stated was that I believed in a higher power and this astonished you?

 

You asked for proof I said that the Bible was enough proof, you say this is a fairy tale. Am I to believe that we came from apes, which came from fish, which came from....what? Am I to believe that I don't have a soul? So our brain is a series of chemical reactions or whatever but there's nothing else? If so what makes me different from a tree in the long run? Is it luck that I was born a homosapien and not a blade of grass? Whom am I to thank for this luck? Is there some formula I could work out?

 

I apologize for being naive....but we are all different and have the right to be.

 

Do you disagree with what the current Pope has written? In particular see the line I have underlined - he ABSOLUTELY believes we came from apes which came from fish (or something like them).

 

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

 

The Vatican has been moving in this direction for 50 years. You have a perfect right to take a literalist view of the Bible, and if you wish to follow your conscience at variance with the official Catholic line I have no objections, but the Vatican is cool with the idea that the Earth is 4 billion years old, and evidently does not see the book of Genesis as a source of scientific truth on the origins of the world and humans.

Edited by basilisk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excuse me for being so naive as to believe in Jesus..you all seem so offended that this is actually possible for a person to do so.

Personaly i'm neither offended nor do i want to offend you.

 

You made a personal choice and thats your right as it's mine to make a different choice.

 

It's only when it comes to organized religion trying to disguise belief as knowledge and hearsay as proof it's getting ugly.

 

so I made it a point not to offend any of you by calling your beliefs idiotic and unrealistic.....i mean I don't really care what you believe...it's your life.

The only reason I responded originally was because most of you were so ignorant to another persons opinions that it was hard for me not to say anything. As a Catholic I had to respond.

This is the problem. You set up a beliefe system against knowledge. I don't have to believe in science, it simply works. I don't belive it works, i KNOW it works because i can expirience it with my very own senses and put it to the test with my very own brain. Neither is true for any religious belief system.

 

You use your logic, your science to prove the existence that God isn't real.....when I see things every day that points out the opposite. Wether you agree or not I don't care.....like I said, I didn't come here to preach or to change you. All I stated was that I believed in a higher power and this astonished you?

Not at all. The world around is is so manifold and complex that assuming there is a guiding hand that created it is an understandable notion. However it's just that, an assumption and one i happen to not agree with based on how i myself perceive the world.

 

You asked for proof I said that the Bible was enough proof, you say this is a fairy tale. Am I to believe that we came from apes, which came from fish, which came from....what? Am I to believe that I don't have a soul? So our brain is a series of chemical reactions or whatever but there's nothing else? If so what makes me different from a tree in the long run? Is it luck that I was born a homosapien and not a blade of grass? Whom am I to thank for this luck? Is there some formula I could work out?

Not believing in god is like swimming in a wide open water, it's freedom but at the same time it's scary.

 

My personal problem with the many attempts by religion to reduce our reality to the actions of god is that by this they effectively cripple their own god and reduce an assumably all powerfull entity to a real loughing stock. If i see someone setting up a pseudo mathmatical proof of how the arch could have worked, i think "don't you have enough faith to simply say: God made it work ?" . If god makes the rules then accept that it is actualy god and not a second class car mechanic that relies on faulty tools to do stuff. Once you start to take the scripture of the bible literaly you start to belittle god. The bible is a collection of stories and recollections made by men, transposed by men and reproduced by men over and over again. The same faulty men that we are, the same faulty men that are sometimes not capable to step into the right trouser leg, the same faulty men that are often not capable to stop drinking at the right time. How in the world could those men be able to correctly transport the word of god over several millenia? How could we assume that someone who thought the inquistion was a splendid idea is realy reading the same original word of god as we assumably do? Face it, the interpretation of the bible changed and the text of the bible changed. Whatever the real original meaning was all those years ago, only a part of it has reached us in the here and now.

 

but we are all different and have the right to be.

This is maybe the best statement in this thread yet :)

 

Cheers

Björn

 

 

PS: I'm the son of a socialist and a preachers doughter, sometimes i think it shows ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I to believe that we came from apes, which came from fish, which came from....what? Am I to believe that I don't have a soul? So our brain is a series of chemical reactions or whatever but there's nothing else? If so what makes me different from a tree in the long run? Is it luck that I was born a homosapien and not a blade of grass? Whom am I to thank for this luck? Is there some formula I could work out?

 

Unless these questions are rhetorical, all of them have been addressed in this thread from earlier (the first being one being the issue of chance and the second about lineage from a common ancestor with apes).

 

As far as what makes us different than a tree: I think there is the obvious visual and physical differences so I imagine you mean what makes us more special in the universe than a tree?

 

Nothing, I think. I think it's human nature to feel like "The movie never ends". Everybody likes the notion of 'forever'. In fact whenever somebody finds out that I don't assume there to be an afterlife upon death I often hear, "But that's so depressing". As if it's going to magically be true because we WANT it to be that way.

 

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that our personalities are made up of electrical/chemical signals. When we get drunk we change personalities (some more than others). When we are on SSRIs, we change our viewpoint on life a little (decreases depression and suicidal thoughts). When our brains get damaged we have been shown to COMPLETELY change personalities.

 

So it's very clear that we are, what we are physically made of. So IF we had a soul, what is the transfer method to convert these signals from one protocol to the other? Chances are there isn't one and that since humans have a burning desire to never REALLY die, it's most likely, that we just made up the idea of a soul.

 

We are simply carbon based life forms like plants and every other animal. Machines that stop thinking when there is no more electricity, oxygen and other very real physical things flowing through our system. A system that directly defines our personalities and thought processes.

 

Trust me, I would LOVE to believe we live on forever. I love the idea of eternal bliss and streets paved with gold (even though I don't imagine gold has any value outside of Earth's economy). I just can't accept that based on what I see before me.

 

But obviously no one knows the true answer. I can only go by what seems rational to me. And it's strong enough of a notion that I'm just going to live my life not thinking it's just part 1 of an infinite journey that begins at death.

Edited by C.Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes us different from all the rest of the living things is that we not only perceive our environment and react to it, but we conciously change it. This can be seen to lesser degrees in some of our cousins and other higher developed mamals, but it's realy a distinct trait of humans.

 

I'm very comfortable with the fact that i'm to a high degree a product of my environment and the genes my parents passed on to me. I don't need a soul, what i need is conciousness and ethics. The first has been provided by billions of years of evolution, the second to the biggest part by my parents (which is the biggest gift beside life itself i have to thank them for). Conciousness enables me to reflect on what i am, what i do and in what relation i stay to the rest of the universe. The ethics enable me to interact with this universe in a way that is productive and satisfying.

 

Nowhere in this is it neccesary for me to believe in a higher authority. If i were to believe in one this would mean that ultimately i'm not responsible for my actions. However one of my firmest believes is that i myself am fully responsible for everything i do or not do. Saying "god made me do it" even in an indirect way (the lords prayer includes the line "thy will be done" which means that i accept that someone else is responsible for my actions) is totaly unacceptable for me.

 

Cheers

Björn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Björn and C.Smith, thank you for the tone and thought of the last few posts...I enjoy the demeanor of a friendly debate far more than prior post...I'm far from a great debater but the subject is very interesting.

 

"The bible is a collection of stories and recollections made by men, transposed by men and reproduced by men over and over again. The same faulty men that we are, the same faulty men that are sometimes not capable to step into the right trouser leg, the same faulty men that are often not capable to stop drinking at the right time. How in the world could those men be able to correctly transport the word of god over several millenia?" - Björn

 

Science by definition: is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work.

 

Scientist are not men? And I've been around enough technology to know that as time goes on technology changes drastically....so who's to say "method A" which gave me "results A" would later change under a new method? so we are to believe that MEN who are imperfect by nature couldn't get something wrong or that a method or later discovery in time will give different results?

 

I have some work to finish up so, i'll get back to the Higher Power/Free Will subject later....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientist are not men? And I've been around enough technology to know that as time goes on technology changes drastically....so who's to say "method A" which gave me "results A" would later change under a new method? so we are to believe that MEN who are imperfect by nature couldn't get something wrong or that a method or later discovery in time will give different results?

 

Scientists are completely just human like the rest of us, and they get it wrong all the time. This is why the "Scientific method" was found to be so useful. To the outsider, it might seem that science is a bit like religion; it has its prophets who declare the truth, like Newton, Darwin or Einstein. But these figures, although they were brilliant, were certainly not completely infallible. Newton, whose laws of motion were the best we had for 200 years, spent more time on trying to turn base metals into gold than he did on what we would see as genuine science. Darwin came up with a theory of Evolution, which has stood the test of time, but his theories about the mechanisms of inheritance and the causes of mutations were pure speculation, until DNA was discovered nearly a century later. Einstein's theory of relativity may have provided a more complete understanding than Newton's laws, but he initially rejected quantum theory, which is now generally accepted. Just because a theory is proposed by a great man or a genius, does not mean that it can not be tested or improved upon.

 

My point is that science is actually much bigger than the individuals, that make it up. Thousands of individuals soldier away at their individual frontiers, proposing theories, devising experiments to test them, and testing each other's theory. If you can find one repeatable experiment that doesn't fit with the theory, your theory is destroyed and you have to come up with something better. Remember scientists are not happy with just reinforcing the status quo. You don't win the Nobel prize for confirming what everyone already thought. If someone could prove that homeopathy or ESP or faith healing actually worked they would probably become the most famous scientist alive. But they haven't (and James Randi still has his $1m)

 

The evidence that scientific methods work is all around us. We have astonishing computers, cures for cancer, the internet and many things that would appear to be magic to people a few generations ago.

 

If religion was like science then it would allow that knowledge can advance. That the writings of those men in a backwater of the Roman Empire 20 centuries ago was not the final word - it needs to be understood in the light of new discoveries about the human "creature", and the world around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If religion was like science then it would allow that knowledge can advance. That the writings of those men in a backwater of the Roman Empire 20 centuries ago was not the final word - it needs to be understood in the light of new discoveries about the human "creature", and the world around us.

very well put

 

godisaverb_a3_web_close.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't know why it's so hard to accept that our personalities are made up of electrical/chemical signals"

C.Smith

 

The problem I have with that statement is it implies I don't exist. A personality must have a degree of independence. Electrical/chemical signals are purely reactive. They can't be traced back to anything other than external influences. To say "we" exist in these electrical/chemical signals is no less faith-based than to say God exists. If I get drunk and my personality changes, how was that which changed ever a part of me? I might as well identify myself with any arbitrary chemical reaction.

 

It could be said we are "persons" because our particular pattern of electrical/chemical signals is unique in the Universe. This is true but "we" didn't create them. Everything "we" think and feel is a product of external influences.

 

I've come to two conclusions. Both are unacceptable to me.

1. The "electrical/chemical" which I can't accept because it goes against my irresistible need to see myself as a person.

2. There is no "person". The Universe functions in such a way that evolution is inevitable. In the pattern that forms the Earth, evolution functions best when the replicating patterns identify themselves as "separate" (i.e. have a personality to protect) from the environment. This is also unacceptable for the same reason as above.

 

tl;dr shit creek, no paddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

This thread could be sooooo much shorter if people bothered with philosophy 101. That would knock out all of the "how do I know I exist?", "how do I know you exist?", "how do I know if something really happened?" stuff. That ground has already been covered if you bother to look into it. I love the position of “I have no knowledge of what you're talking about, so you must be wrong”. This is the crux of the thread - taking a position where learning is considered a disadvantage because it weakens your original position. That's the only part I hate. I don't have anything against anyone who believes in god or doesn't, however, I absolutely detest the idea of a culture that celebrates ignorance. The Pope took the time to do the work and understand something about the world we live in, why can't everyone else pull their weight? Once you've got a handle on the scientific method, you can recreate the work that's been done and know for sure what the truth is. Is laziness the excuse? I thought sloth was one of the seven deadly sins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread could be sooooo much shorter if people bothered with philosophy 101.

 

i heard the fxphd philosophy class is off the chain

 

seriously though, it would be rad if there were an initiative to have freely accessible liberal arts and other college math and science classes into free video classes for those of us that smoked our way through the first couple of years of college and enjoy adding a little general knowledge during our renders - but then we'd have this same debate with the literal theists as to the origins of the universe

 

how do you guys (govinda) go about growing your knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it would be rad if there were an initiative to have freely accessible liberal arts and other college math and science classes into free video classes for those of us that smoked our way through the first couple of years of college and enjoy adding a little general knowledge during our renders

MIT has a bunch of free courses online.

 

LifeHacker also had a good article a while back about free online college courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
i heard the fxphd philosophy class is off the chain

 

seriously though, it would be rad if there were an initiative to have freely accessible liberal arts and other college math and science classes into free video classes for those of us that smoked our way through the first couple of years of college and enjoy adding a little general knowledge during our renders - but then we'd have this same debate with the literal theists as to the origins of the universe

 

how do you guys (govinda) go about growing your knowledge?

Here's a free Stanford education.

http://itunes.stanford.edu/

"Darwin's Legacy" is right on the top row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
do you believe in a beginning? i mean prior to the "Big Bang"?

I really hope you're not just now working your way to the prime mover theory - that would be disappointing considering the length of this thread.

 

Regarding the Big Bang - it's not a question of believing in it. There is a theory called the Big Bang theory, which is based on observations and measurements. Right now, it is a widely accepted theory that such an event took place (because of peer reviewed evidence based on repeatable measurements and observations, not because people believe in it). If some new information comes along to suggest that there is an alternate theory that is more plausible based on the evidence available, the scientific community will progress to incorporate that new theory, and begin trying to learn more based on that new theory.

 

If you're going down the route of the prime mover argument that something can't come from nothing, and what preceded the Big Bang, it's a valid question that is on the minds of many people. No one knows the answer. Many of us are OK with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...