| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2007 07:46:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: God Paradox |
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality. God is not a universe or a nature or an object.
So God must resemble human in character. No wonder some people believe
humans invented God. On the question of who created God.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand this God and how
we
can understand this God cannot be beyond the human common sense. Else
it
is indescriptable and cannot be comprehended by human minds.
Why God has to be created by something else?
If God exists, then it is not invented. But human understanding comes
and goes
with humans.
Only because you can ask that question and there can be no answer doesn't
mean there is no God.
Living organisms are weak and ephemeral, so, the question is why this
ephemeral being called humans are constantly dreaming about existing
eternity? Something or someone must have put it in their brain.
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our
existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191722647.199844.292520@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 4:53 pm, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:17 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:50 pm, Rolf R <R1...@none.net> wrote:
No, dear Chen,
This book doesn't have any connection with religious propaganda, on
the
contrary, it casts a lot of light on some of the most permanent
monstrosities of Western religions, including child mutilation
(circumcision), castration, celibacy and burning on stakes of those
who
did not believe.
THE GOD PARADOX is a must for those confronting Western religious
ideas,
especially those which are set strong on monotheistic ideas.
Check the book and let me know your opinion after you read it.
You can order it at amazon.com or any Barnes and Noble store, or
Lulu.com. For further information on this book, check out the
author's
site:
wwww.r1313.info
When it comes to God and religion, forget it. There are no such
things, except old primitive people's ignorance and superstitions.
Ah, just caught this!
I've posted on this before from December 9th, 2006:
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.filipino/msg/681756520d91de7d?
"If God is God He is not good, if God is good He is not God; take the
even, take the odd..."
And I translated the above December 10th, 2006:
"It goes to the heart of "evil" about theodicy - how can an omnipotent
omniscient omnibenovelent god exist? That's what the original quote
was getting at. You can be god only if you're not good, you can be
good only if you're not god. But eventually you gotta take your fav
pick."
Of course, the whether God exists *factually* is not a concern. Anyone
who keeps hammering at the ancient idea of God will fail because those
who believe in God will merely reformulate their questions in their
receding territory.
For the driving question for God is not the unknown, which can easily
be discovered by science one day (one hopes), but the *unknowable*.
The central core from religion is faith and doubt: "how do you know
that you're not wrong"? And that's formulated not *because of*
evidence, but *in spite of* evidence.
And then there's that much deeper question. If God created everything
there is, then what created God? It becomes an infinite regress
series. The second God created the first one, the third created the
second etc etc.
That's counterproductive, violates parsimony, and answers nothing. For
if a God can create our universe out of the blue, he should, or at
least be, just as complex. For how can a simple being *create*
something more complex? So now we have an even bigger issue at hand -
what can explain this even bigger complexity of God? The problem is
now compounded.
Perhaps simplicity is elegance. As a bumper sticker says, "if you stop
preaching in our school, we'll stop thinking in your church."
I think I know what you mean. The following is how I see it
Let me use space as an anology.
Two ways to see space.
1. The common folks' way: Space as something that separate things.
That is,
it makes a thing a thing through separating it from other things.
Space also
contains all things.
2. The physicist' or mathematician's way: Space as an object with
shapes and
properties. That is space as open or closed manifolds of different
topologies
and geometries, intrinsic and extrinsic, local and global properties,
and etc.
The way most people approach the concept of God is like 2 above. A
being or
entity with all kinds of complicated properties. A simple approach is
similar to
approach 1. The principle which contains and enables all other
principles.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 09:02:07 PM |
|
|
"ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality.
This is stupid.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand
this God and how we can understand this God cannot
be beyond the human common sense.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Davej" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 09:11:10 PM |
|
|
On Oct 21, 7:46 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality. God is not a universe or a nature or an
object. So God must resemble human in character. No wonder some
people believe humans invented God. On the question of who created
God.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand this God and
how we can understand this God cannot be beyond the human
common sense. Else it is indescriptable and cannot be comprehended
by human minds.
[...]
If you want to believe there is a Gawd and you want to try to
understand that Gawd then the only way to do this would be to look at
nature. What do you see in nature? Forget the mystics and their
"inspired" writings. Look at nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 09:14:19 PM |
|
|
On Oct 21, 10:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:46 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality. God is not a universe or a nature or an
object. So God must resemble human in character. No wonder some
people believe humans invented God. On the question of who created
God.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand this God and
how we can understand this God cannot be beyond the human
common sense. Else it is indescriptable and cannot be comprehended
by human minds.
[...]
If you want to believe there is a Gawd and you want to try to
understand that Gawd then the only way to do this would be to look at
nature. What do you see in nature? Forget the mystics and their
"inspired" writings. Look at nature.
"Look" entails the using of human common sense. Not "looking" as a
bat or a bumble bee will look.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Davej" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 10:09:49 PM |
|
|
On Oct 21, 9:14 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:46 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality. God is not a universe or a nature or an
object. So God must resemble human in character. No wonder some
people believe humans invented God. On the question of who created
God.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand this God and
how we can understand this God cannot be beyond the human
common sense. Else it is indescriptable and cannot be comprehended
by human minds.
[...]
If you want to believe there is a Gawd and you want to try to
understand that Gawd then the only way to do this would be to look at
nature. What do you see in nature? Forget the mystics and their
"inspired" writings. Look at nature.
"Look" entails the using of human common sense. Not "looking" as a
bat or a bumble bee will look.
"Look" entails careful analysis. "Common sense" is the sense that any
fool has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Go adn human common sense Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 02:07:01 PM |
|
|
On Oct 21, 11:09 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:14 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:46 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality. God is not a universe or a nature or an
object. So God must resemble human in character. No wonder some
people believe humans invented God. On the question of who created
God.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand this God and
how we can understand this God cannot be beyond the human
common sense. Else it is indescriptable and cannot be comprehended
by human minds.
[...]
If you want to believe there is a Gawd and you want to try to
understand that Gawd then the only way to do this would be to look at
nature. What do you see in nature? Forget the mystics and their
"inspired" writings. Look at nature.
"Look" entails the using of human common sense. Not "looking" as a
bat or a bumble bee will look.
"Look" entails careful analysis. "Common sense" is the sense that any
fool has.
what I meant by human common sense is not the common sense of a
person. I am taking a macro view on human common sense. It is what
enable we to understand each other across cultue, space, and time.
Let me use the theory of relativity to illustrate my point.
Let us say it is true that only Einstein and a small number of
scientists
understand the theory of general relativity. Of course their
understanding
reflects their careful analysis. But are this group of scientists
functioning
beyond the human comon sense?
My answer is no. As long there isn't a "relativity theory" gene
without
which one cannot understand the theory of relativity, the capablity
to
understand the theory of relativity does not reflect any thing beyond
the human common sense. In another word, I posit it is true if any
person can spend enough time and effort, he will understand
the theory of relativity. The capability to understand the theory of
relativity is built in every human. People from the past as well as
people
in the future is then expected to reach the same understanding if
they
given the right traning. Of course, there are differences
among humans. And some will have deeper understandings than the
other.
If we accept this view of human common sense, then the human common
sense encompass all human knowledge. We knowledge about God cannot
go beyond it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Go adn human common sense Re: God Paradox |
23 Oct 2007 08:42:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:07:01 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com" <ltlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Oct 21, 11:09 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:14 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:46 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, "Supertech" <ejo...@realtime.net> wrote:
God must have personality. God is not a universe or a nature or an
object. So God must resemble human in character. No wonder some
people believe humans invented God. On the question of who created
God.
Asumming there is a God. Still what we can understand this God and
how we can understand this God cannot be beyond the human
common sense. Else it is indescriptable and cannot be comprehended
by human minds.
[...]
If you want to believe there is a Gawd and you want to try to
understand that Gawd then the only way to do this would be to look at
nature. What do you see in nature? Forget the mystics and their
"inspired" writings. Look at nature.
"Look" entails the using of human common sense. Not "looking" as a
bat or a bumble bee will look.
"Look" entails careful analysis. "Common sense" is the sense that any
fool has.
what I meant by human common sense is not the common sense of a
person. I am taking a macro view on human common sense. It is what
enable we to understand each other across cultue, space, and time.
Let me use the theory of relativity to illustrate my point.
Let us say it is true that only Einstein and a small number of
scientists
understand the theory of general relativity. Of course their
understanding
reflects their careful analysis. But are this group of scientists
functioning
beyond the human comon sense?
My answer is no. As long there isn't a "relativity theory" gene
without
which one cannot understand the theory of relativity, the capablity
to
understand the theory of relativity does not reflect any thing beyond
the human common sense. In another word, I posit it is true if any
person can spend enough time and effort, he will understand
the theory of relativity. The capability to understand the theory of
relativity is built in every human. People from the past as well as
people
in the future is then expected to reach the same understanding if
they
given the right traning. Of course, there are differences
among humans. And some will have deeper understandings than the
other.
If we accept this view of human common sense, then the human common
sense encompass all human knowledge. We knowledge about God cannot
go beyond it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There is no need to define your own words because they already exist:
intelligence and gullibility.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 08:47:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 09:05:09 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
Doesn't matter. Religion isn't about logic. What people
believe has nothing to do with logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
21 Oct 2007 08:58:03 PM |
|
|
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood
by the average human and transmitted from one person to another.
Common
sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not entail
unconditional
acceptance.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 07:47:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:58:03 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
So? Believing in something doesn't make it so.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
No, the belief is part of human immaturity. But that still doesn't
show how we can extrapolate a finite thing to infinity. (In fact,
that's mathematically invalid.)
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood by the average human and transmitted from one person to another.
No, that's common experience, or common thought. "Common sense" means
"sound practical judgment", which religious belief is the antithesis
of.
Common sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not entail
unconditional acceptance.
It entails something that makes sense, which religion doesn't.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 06:22:28 AM |
|
|
Good logic!
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tp6ph3p40g4edblgccp9teo01vl93bohu3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:58:03 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
So? Believing in something doesn't make it so.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
No, the belief is part of human immaturity. But that still doesn't
show how we can extrapolate a finite thing to infinity. (In fact,
that's mathematically invalid.)
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood by the average human and transmitted from one person to
another.
No, that's common experience, or common thought. "Common sense" means
"sound practical judgment", which religious belief is the antithesis
of.
Common sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not
entail
unconditional acceptance.
It entails something that makes sense, which religion doesn't.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 12:30:21 PM |
|
|
On Oct 22, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:58:03 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
So? Believing in something doesn't make it so.
No. Belief exists because it is useful.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
No, the belief is part of human immaturity. But that still doesn't
show how we can extrapolate a finite thing to infinity. (In fact,
that's mathematically invalid.)
You can call it human immaturity. But throughout history most people
believe in some kind of higher principle most of the time. That is a
fact.
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood by the average human and transmitted from one person to another.
No, that's common experience, or common thought. "Common sense" means
"sound practical judgment", which religious belief is the antithesis
of.
That is only you judgement. Many great scientists also believe in God
or a higher
principle. Do you think they all entered a state of temoorary
insansity and they
forgot to use their brain for juddement.
Common sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not entail
unconditional acceptance.
It entails something that makes sense, which religion doesn't.
Throughout history most people believe in some kind of higher
principle most of the time. Most Americans still believe in Giod.
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 08:59:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:58:03 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
So? Believing in something doesn't make it so.
No. Belief exists because it is useful.
No, belief exists because we have the ability to think - and the
concomitant ability to be deluded.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
No, the belief is part of human immaturity. But that still doesn't
show how we can extrapolate a finite thing to infinity. (In fact,
that's mathematically invalid.)
You can call it human immaturity. But throughout history most people
believe in some kind of higher principle most of the time. That is a
fact.
And it's a fact that people who believe in gods are immature and
deluded.
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood by the average human and transmitted from one person to another.
No, that's common experience, or common thought. "Common sense" means
"sound practical judgment", which religious belief is the antithesis
of.
That is only you judgement.
No, it's the definition of the phrase.
Many great scientists also believe in God
Appeal to authority and Argumentum ad Numeram. Two fallacies in 1
pretty short sentence.
Do you think they all entered a state of temoorary insansity
Religious belief is a mental defect, not a "temporary" mental defect.
That doesn't mean that a religious man can't be a brilliant scientist.
Knowledge of science and "common sense" have very little, if anything,
to do with each other. In fact, A LOT of science is counterintuitive.
The obvious doesn't need a scientist to point it out.
Common sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not entail
unconditional acceptance.
It entails something that makes sense, which religion doesn't.
Throughout history most people believe in some kind of higher
principle most of the time. Most Americans still believe in Giod.
And religious belief makes no sense. There's nothing in objective
reality that requires a god, and there's no objective evidence that
any god has ever objectively existed.
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "LKYs Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 10:54:22 PM |
|
|
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:uvjqh3p22u55khr8ab0g6469i5bn2pflr8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:58:03 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
So? Believing in something doesn't make it so.
No. Belief exists because it is useful.
No, belief exists because we have the ability to think - and the
concomitant ability to be deluded.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
No, the belief is part of human immaturity. But that still doesn't
show how we can extrapolate a finite thing to infinity. (In fact,
that's mathematically invalid.)
You can call it human immaturity. But throughout history most people
believe in some kind of higher principle most of the time. That is a
fact.
And it's a fact that people who believe in gods are immature and
deluded.
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood by the average human and transmitted from one person to another.
No, that's common experience, or common thought. "Common sense" means
"sound practical judgment", which religious belief is the antithesis
of.
That is only you judgement.
No, it's the definition of the phrase.
Many great scientists also believe in God
Appeal to authority and Argumentum ad Numeram. Two fallacies in 1
pretty short sentence.
Do you think they all entered a state of temoorary insansity
Religious belief is a mental defect, not a "temporary" mental defect.
That doesn't mean that a religious man can't be a brilliant scientist.
Knowledge of science and "common sense" have very little, if anything,
to do with each other. In fact, A LOT of science is counterintuitive.
The obvious doesn't need a scientist to point it out.
Common sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not entail
unconditional acceptance.
It entails something that makes sense, which religion doesn't.
Throughout history most people believe in some kind of higher
principle most of the time. Most Americans still believe in Giod.
And religious belief makes no sense. There's nothing in objective
reality that requires a god, and there's no objective evidence that
any god has ever objectively existed.
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "baldeagle" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
23 Oct 2007 09:36:40 PM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LKYs Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: God Paradox |
24 Oct 2007 02:51:47 AM |
|
|
Or is it god impregnated godself into that girl?
"baldeagle" <botakeagle@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:1193193400.440036.129840@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
24 Oct 2007 01:22:39 AM |
|
|
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LKYs Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
24 Oct 2007 02:52:16 AM |
|
|
I second it.
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:EIudnZ9dquYteYPanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com...
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
27 Oct 2007 03:57:15 AM |
|
|
LKYs Mother wrote:
I second it.
Recorded. Extra groups removed.
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:EIudnZ9dquYteYPanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com...
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lobert" |
|
| Title: Re: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
24 Oct 2007 04:07:31 AM |
|
|
who third ?
LKYs Mother wrote:
I second it.
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:EIudnZ9dquYteYPanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com...
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LKYs Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
24 Oct 2007 05:17:53 AM |
|
|
you?
"Lobert" <lobert@imh.org> wrote in message news:ffmuia$hdr$1@mawar.singnet.com.sg...
who third ?
LKYs Mother wrote:
I second it.
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:EIudnZ9dquYteYPanZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@comcast.com...
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
24 Oct 2007 05:18:43 AM |
|
|
On Oct 24, 2:22 am, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
I recommand the novel "American Gods."
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "LKYs Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: aa -- AQOTM nomination [was: God Paradox] |
24 Oct 2007 05:18:45 AM |
|
|
yeeyai yeeyai yeeyai hoooo.
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1193221123.488928.289960@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 24, 2:22 am, Sippuddin <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:54 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I died some two thousand years ago.
God existed then. But one day when we were playing
poker we got drunk and some of us thought god
cheated and we drove the knife through god's heart!
After god's death we regretted our actions, because
then we had one lesser partner at poker!
Hey....
Don't feel bad about killing God..he came back to life
again.
Many years later, God, Prophet Mohamed and I were
good neighbours.
When Mohd married his 9 year old bride, God got
really jealous and fuming mad. To placate God,
Mohd let him sleep with his child bride on the first
night.
She was such a good fucker, God couldn't stop
fucking her..
He was at it "all night long...followed by all day long...
on and on ".
Finally on the 7th day he dropped dead...never to came
back to life ever again.
This is the reason why human never see him again.
It is the fault of Mohamed that God is dead.
This is hilarious! It deserves to be the quote of the month.
I recommand the novel "American Gods."
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: What is practical and according to whom?Re: God Paradox |
22 Oct 2007 10:34:01 PM |
|
|
On Oct 22, 9:59 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:58:03 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:47 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:46:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Extrapolation.Human existence is finite but then we can extrapolate
into our existence into infinity. It is part of human common sense.
Part of human NONsense. Human existence doesn't scale.
You can say that. But many people do believe in God and eternal life.
So? Believing in something doesn't make it so.
No. Belief exists because it is useful.
No, belief exists because we have the ability to think - and the
concomitant ability to be deluded.
Hence the belief is part of human common sense.
No, the belief is part of human immaturity. But that still doesn't
show how we can extrapolate a finite thing to infinity. (In fact,
that's mathematically invalid.)
You can call it human immaturity. But throughout history most people
believe in some kind of higher principle most of the time. That is a
fact.
And it's a fact that people who believe in gods are immature and
deluded.
Human common sense does not mean every single human will subscrib
the same notion. Rather, it means such idea or thought can be
understood by the average human and transmitted from one person to another.
No, that's common experience, or common thought. "Common sense" means
"sound practical judgment", which religious belief is the antithesis
of.
That is only you judgement.
No, it's the definition of the phrase.
Religous pursuit is spiritual pursuit.
Is spiritual pursuit the anti-thesis of "sound practical judgement."
Some will say yes by equating spiritual with non-practical..
Actually,
if one insists on a narrow meaning of "pracitical", pursuing beauty
or
perfection is also non practical. But not all people will agree
According to Abraham Maslow, human needs form a hierachy.Lower
level needs are practical needs such as physical and biological needs.
Higher level needs appear to be less practical but they are necessary
to make a person a better person.
Many great scientists also believe in God
Appeal to authority and Argumentum ad Numeram. Two fallacies in 1
pretty short sentence.
No. I am not appeal to authority.
Rather, I am saying pursuing God and pursuing sciences through
rationality
are not mutually exclusive. Both involve a functioning brain 24/7. I
don't think
great scientists shut off their brains or their reasoning capability
once they step
into a church, a mosque or any other house of worship.
Do you think they all entered a state of temoorary insansity
Religious belief is a mental defect, not a "temporary" mental defect.
That doesn't mean that a religious man can't be a brilliant scientist.
Knowledge of science and "common sense" have very little, if anything,
to do with each other. In fact, A LOT of science is counterintuitive.
The obvious doesn't need a scientist to point it out.
See my other post. Scientific knowledge does not go beyond common
sense.
Common sense is jsut that, it makes to a certain degree. It does not entail
unconditional acceptance.
It entails something that makes sense, which religion doesn't.
Throughout history most people believe in some kind of higher
principle most of the time. Most Americans still believe in Giod.
And religious belief makes no sense. There's nothing in objective
reality that requires a god, and there's no objective evidence that
any god has ever objectively existed.
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
If you meant say that human are not mentally perfect, I agree. Human
being is also human becoming. I would also add, we will never be
mentally
perfect unless we are no longer evolving and adapting.
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is practical and according to whom?Re: God Paradox |
23 Oct 2007 07:47:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:01 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 9:59 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
Religous pursuit is spiritual pursuit.
Is spiritual pursuit the anti-thesis of "sound practical judgement."
Pretty much, when the spiritual pursuit is religion.
According to Abraham Maslow, human needs form a hierachy.Lower
level needs are practical needs such as physical and biological needs.
Higher level needs appear to be less practical but they are necessary
to make a person a better person.
And the need for a god is a sign of mental defect.
Many great scientists also believe in God
Appeal to authority and Argumentum ad Numeram. Two fallacies in 1
pretty short sentence.
No. I am not appeal to authority.
Then you shouldn't have refereed to authority. Your statement WAS an
Appeal to Authority argument. And it WAS Argumentum ad Numeram.
Rather, I am saying pursuing God and pursuing sciences through
rationality are not mutually exclusive.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the things the human mind is capable
of, yes. So? (BTW, that's not a good thing.)
Both involve a functioning brain 24/7.
But in totally different ways, so neither is proof of any kind of a
claim about the other.
I don't think great scientists shut off their brains or their reasoning capability
once they step into a church, a mosque or any other house of worship.
Since religious belief is unreasonable, you're wrong. The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death.
See my other post. Scientific knowledge does not go beyond common
sense.
See my other post. Since MOST science is counterintuitive, is not
only "goes beyond common sense", it's antithetical to common sense. If
science were just "common sense", we wouldn't need science. Everyone
would understand and accept everything it's taken science over 2,000
years to find.
If all of science is just so much "common sense", why do fundies still
insist on "Abstinence only" education (psychology is a science)? Why
don't fundies accept that evolution is something that occurs?
Oh, because Christianity - which is anything BUT "sense" - says that
these are the positions Christians must take, even if they have to
distort reality (lie through their teeth) or "shut off their brains".
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
If you meant say that human are not mentally perfect, I agree.
No, I meant that those with religious belief are mentally defective.
Evidently you don't understand plain,simple written English.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is practical and according to whom?Re: God Paradox |
23 Oct 2007 09:41:05 AM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:01 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 9:59 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
Religous pursuit is spiritual pursuit.
Is spiritual pursuit the anti-thesis of "sound practical judgement."
Pretty much, when the spiritual pursuit is religion.
For many practical WJ kind who want only to maximize their weath,
taking a trip to Alaska to enyoy nature is also impractical, or
against
practical judgement in their opinion.
According to Abraham Maslow, human needs form a hierachy.Lower
level needs are practical needs such as physical and biological needs.
Higher level needs appear to be less practical but they are necessary
to make a person a better person.
And the need for a god is a sign of mental defect.
According to whom and by what criteria?
Many great scientists also believe in God
Appeal to authority and Argumentum ad Numeram. Two fallacies in 1
pretty short sentence.
No. I am not appeal to authority.
Then you shouldn't have refereed to authority. Your statement WAS an
Appeal to Authority argument. And it WAS Argumentum ad Numeram.
Rather, I am saying pursuing God and pursuing sciences through
rationality are not mutually exclusive.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the things the human mind is capable
of, yes. So? (BTW, that's not a good thing.)
If this is cognitive dissonance which is not a good thing, please tell
what are
the bad consequences.
Both involve a functioning brain 24/7.
But in totally different ways, so neither is proof of any kind of a
claim about the other.
Alright, please way in what way scientists use their brain differently
when
they step into a church. What proof do you have?
I don't think great scientists shut off their brains or their reasoning capability
once they step into a church, a mosque or any other house of worship.
Since religious belief is unreasonable, you're wrong. The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death.
I assume you have data to support your assertion that "The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death." Please lay it out. I am all
ears.
See my other post. Scientific knowledge does not go beyond common
sense.
See my other post. Since MOST science is counterintuitive, is not
only "goes beyond common sense", it's antithetical to common sense. If
science were just "common sense", we wouldn't need science. Everyone
would understand and accept everything it's taken science over 2,000
years to find.
It is human common sense in the sense that we don't have to postulate
any
special gene or any other supernatural facture to explain the
differences.
Please note that your "counterintuitive" must be qualified by time and
culture.
What is counterintutive in one culture may be intutitive in another
culture.
What is counterintuitive at a certain time t could be the generally
accepted assumption at time t+.
Example.
Let us say round earth is countintuitive 2000 years ago and
intituitive at
present. What is mediating the change? Some special "round earth"
gene
human kind pick up? Of course not. So, we have to accepted that human
as is can understand round earth. The difference is about "data", not
that
our brains and mental functioning are different. For example, the same
set
logics were used to proof and to over turn the existence of ether.
If all of science is just so much "common sense", why do fundies still
insist on "Abstinence only" education (psychology is a science)? Why
don't fundies accept that evolution is something that occurs?
Different people have silight different copies of this "common
sense."
What is common sense to a culture is not common sense to another
culture.
Oh, because Christianity - which is anything BUT "sense" - says that
these are the positions Christians must take, even if they have to
distort reality (lie through their teeth) or "shut off their brains".
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
If you meant say that human are not mentally perfect, I agree.
No, I meant that those with religious belief are mentally defective.
Evidently you don't understand plain,simple written English.
Please tell according to your criteria, how many Americans are
mentally defective? I bring this up as a way to establish what is
normalcy, i.e. non-mentally defective.
If one says 5% of a population is mentally defective, that is one
thing.
If one says 95% of an otherwise normal functioning population is
mentally defective, then one has to ask whether the standard of
normalcy is wrong.
Al at Webdingers dot com
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is practical and according to whom?Re: God Paradox |
23 Oct 2007 02:27:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:41:05 -0700, "ltlee1@hotmail.com"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:01 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
According to Abraham Maslow, human needs form a hierachy.Lower
level needs are practical needs such as physical and biological needs.
Higher level needs appear to be less practical but they are necessary
to make a person a better person.
And the need for a god is a sign of mental defect.
According to whom and by what criteria?
According to those who aren't mentally defective, by criteria the
mentally defective can't comprehend.
Rather, I am saying pursuing God and pursuing sciences through
rationality are not mutually exclusive.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the things the human mind is capable
of, yes. So? (BTW, that's not a good thing.)
If this is cognitive dissonance which is not a good thing, please tell
what are the bad consequences.
Stupidity. That's always a bad thing, ESPECIALLY when it's
deliberate.
Both involve a functioning brain 24/7.
But in totally different ways, so neither is proof of any kind of a
claim about the other.
Alright, please way in what way scientists use their brain differently
when they step into a church.
They lose objectivity.
What proof do you have?
There's no objective evidence that any god objectively exists. Anyone
who believes that one does isn't being objective, something science
requires.
I don't think great scientists shut off their brains or their reasoning capability
once they step into a church, a mosque or any other house of worship.
Since religious belief is unreasonable, you're wrong. The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death.
I assume you have data to support your assertion that "The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death." Please lay it out. I am all
ears.
There's no other reason. (Of course if you know of any other
objective reason, I'd be glad to see it.)
See my other post. Scientific knowledge does not go beyond common
sense.
See my other post. Since MOST science is counterintuitive, is not
only "goes beyond common sense", it's antithetical to common sense. If
science were just "common sense", we wouldn't need science. Everyone
would understand and accept everything it's taken science over 2,000
years to find.
It is human common sense in the sense that we don't have to postulate
any special gene or any other supernatural facture to explain the
differences.
Common sense has nothing to do with genes. Learn what the words you
use mean.
Please note that your "counterintuitive" must be qualified by time and
culture.
SCIENCE - regardless of time and culture - is mainly counterintuitive.
What is counterintutive in one culture may be intutitive in another
culture.
You're saying that some cultures can see the curvature of the planet
while others can't? That some cultures can see microscopic bacteria,
and know what diseases they cause, while others can't?
Nonsense.
What is counterintuitive at a certain time t could be the generally
accepted assumption at time t+.
It's STILL counterintuitive that the Earth is a spheroid. It's
learned knowledge, but counterintuitive.
Example.
Let us say round earth is countintuitive 2000 years ago and
intituitive at present.
It's still counterintuitive. Intuition and acquired knowledge aren't
the same. Again, learn the meanings of the words you use.
If all of science is just so much "common sense", why do fundies still
insist on "Abstinence only" education (psychology is a science)? Why
don't fundies accept that evolution is something that occurs?
Different people have silight different copies of this "common
sense."
Then "common sense" isn't very reliable, since it's purely subjective.
What is common sense to a culture is not common sense to another
culture.
You're saying that "common sense" is just opinion. That makes it
totally unreliable.
Science, OTOH, is a lot more reliable, because it rejects anything
that doesn't actually correspond to reality.
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
If you meant say that human are not mentally perfect, I agree.
No, I meant that those with religious belief are mentally defective.
Evidently you don't understand plain,simple written English.
Please tell according to your criteria, how many Americans are
mentally defective?
All of them who are religious, and probably some who aren't.
I bring this up as a way to establish what is
normalcy, i.e. non-mentally defective.
Sorry, but you have more words to learn. If everyone is mentally
defective that doesn't mean that everyone is not defective. That's a
form of Argumentum ad Numeram.
If one says 5% of a population is mentally defective, that is one
thing.
If one says 95% of an otherwise normal functioning population is
mentally defective, then one has to ask whether the standard of
normalcy is wrong.
We're not discussing normalcy, we're discussing supposedly sane adults
having "invisible friends". If the "friend" is anything but a god,
the person is considered mentally defective. Sorry, but sane adults
don't give a free pass to a delusion just because it involves a god.
You don't accept the claims of the objective existence of Kali, we
don't accept your claims of the objective existence of your god, and
for the same reason - lack of objective evidence. (And, in the case
of the Christian god, it's defines in a way that makes it
self-contradictory, so it CAN'T actually exist as defined.)
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is practical and according to whom?Re: God Paradox |
23 Oct 2007 04:27:07 PM |
|
|
On Oct 23, 3:27 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:41:05 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
<ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 8:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:01 -0700, "ltl...@hotmail.com"
According to Abraham Maslow, human needs form a hierachy.Lower
level needs are practical needs such as physical and biological needs.
Higher level needs appear to be less practical but they are necessary
to make a person a better person.
And the need for a god is a sign of mental defect.
According to whom and by what criteria?
According to those who aren't mentally defective, by criteria the
mentally defective can't comprehend.
I don't accept statement like "atheistsa re mentally defective." For
me, it
reflects only the prejudice of the speaker. I similarly don't accept
your
statement of "the need for a god is a sign of mental defect."
I offered you an opportunity to explain your view. Of course you don't
have
if your can't or don't want to.
Rather, I am saying pursuing God and pursuing sciences through
rationality are not mutually exclusive.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the things the human mind is capable
of, yes. So? (BTW, that's not a good thing.)
If this is cognitive dissonance which is not a good thing, please tell
what are the bad consequences.
Stupidity. That's always a bad thing, ESPECIALLY when it's
deliberate.
Any statistics to support the claim that scientists who are believers
of any
kind of God are stupid in comparison with those who do not?
Both involve a functioning brain 24/7.
But in totally different ways, so neither is proof of any kind of a
claim about the other.
Alright, please way in what way scientists use their brain differently
when they step into a church.
They lose objectivity.
What proof do you have?
There's no objective evidence that any god objectively exists. Anyone
who believes that one does isn't being objective, something science
requires.
Which law, human or devince, stated that one must only beleive what
is
objectively exists? A scientist who devotes his life to find a not yet
existed
cure for a disease is certainly not objetive, or not practical
according to
your criteria. But most people will not see him that way.
I don't think great scientists shut off their brains or their reasoning capability
once they step into a church, a mosque or any other house of worship.
Since religious belief is unreasonable, you're wrong. The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death.
I assume you have data to support your assertion that "The ONLY reason
for religious belief is a childish fear of death." Please lay it out. I am all
ears.
There's no other reason. (Of course if you know of any other
objective reason, I'd be glad to see it.)
Ad hoc hypothesis is a dime a dozen.
You make the claim that the "ONLY reason for religious belief is a
childish fear of death", it up to you to susbtantiate your claim.
See my other post. Scientific knowledge does not go beyond common
sense.
See my other post. Since MOST science is counterintuitive, is not
only "goes beyond common sense", it's antithetical to common sense. If
science were just "common sense", we wouldn't need science. Everyone
would understand and accept everything it's taken science over 2,000
years to find.
It is human common sense in the sense that we don't have to postulate
any special gene or any other supernatural facture to explain the
differences.
Common sense has nothing to do with genes.
Is that what I had said?
Learn what the words you
use mean.
Funny. You repeated what I had stated, yet you think you
are disagreeing with me.
Please note that your "counterintuitive" must be qualified by time and
culture.
SCIENCE - regardless of time and culture - is mainly counterintuitive.
Actually, science is only useful. Else quantum theory also a fantasy
no different
from alchemy.
What is counterintutive in one culture may be intutitive in another
culture.
You're saying that some cultures can see the curvature of the planet
while others can't? That some cultures can see microscopic bacteria,
and know what diseases they cause, while others can't?
Nonsense.
What is counterintuitive at a certain time t could be the generally
accepted assumption at time t+.
It's STILL counterintuitive that the Earth is a spheroid. It's
learned knowledge, but counterintuitive.
No. It iis not.
Every time I was at the beach, I see a curved horizon. It implied
earth is
not flat.
Example.
Let us say round earth is countintuitive 2000 years ago and
intituitive at present.
It's still counterintuitive. Intuition and acquired knowledge aren't
the same. Again, learn the meanings of the words you use.
If all of science is just so much "common sense", why do fundies still
insist on "Abstinence only" education (psychology is a science)? Why
don't fundies accept that evolution is something that occurs?
Different people have silight different copies of this "common
sense."
Then "common sense" isn't very reliable, since it's purely subjective.
The common sense of a person is subjective because everyone's
copy of common sense is slightly different from the next person.
However,
collectively speaking, human common sense is not subjective.
What is common sense to a culture is not common sense to another
culture.
You're saying that "common sense" is just opinion. That makes it
totally unreliable.
Another analogy.
Common sense is a receipe. Because of local differences in taste and
the availability of ingradients, different communities has different
receipe
for the same dishes. Different groups of people have different
"common
sense." But the human common sense collectively is the only criteria
of
all things.
Science, OTOH, is a lot more reliable, because it rejects anything
that doesn't actually correspond to reality.
Is Schrodinger's cat correspind to reality?
So God iwas and is making sense to them.
Which is more evidence of mental defect. Nonsense doesn't "make
sense" to sane adults.
If you meant say that human are not mentally perfect, I agree.
No, I meant that those with religious belief are mentally defective.
Evidently you don't understand plain,simple written English.
Please tell according to your criteria, how many Americans are
mentally defective?
All of them who are religious, and probably some who aren't.
I bring this up as a way to establish what is
normalcy, i.e. non-mentally defective.
Sorry, but you have more words to learn. If everyone is mentally
defective that doesn't mean that everyone is not defective. That's a
form of Argumentum ad Numeram.
I suppose you have an objective standard of what is mentally
defective
and what is not. Please tell who determine the standard. How can one
know whether the standard makers are not mentally defective
themselvies?
If one says 5% of a population is mentally defective, that is one
thing.
If one says 95% of an otherwise normal functioning population is
mentally defective, then one has to ask whether the standard of
normalcy is wrong.
We're not discussing normalcy, we're discussing supposedly sane adults
having "invisible friends". If the "friend" is anything but a god,
the person is considered mentally defective. Sorry, but sane adults
don't give a free pass to a delusion just because it involves a god.
You don't accept the claims of the objective existence of Kali, we
don't accept your claims of the objective existence of your god, and
for the same reason | | | | | | | | | | |
