Cat Stevens

If the Ivory Tower is the brain of the board, and the Transformers discussion is its heart, then General Discussions is the waste disposal pipe. Or kidney. Or something suitably pulpy and soft, like 4 week old bananas.

Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide

Is Cat Stevens a terrorist?

Hell yeah he's a muslim, isn't he?
2
10%
Well some of his music is pretty goddamn awful...
2
10%
If the US Immigration Dept. says he is then he must be.
1
5%
Who's Cat Stevens?
4
19%
Duh...
0
No votes
Get real, of course he isn't.
1
5%
This is both tragic and hilarious at the same time.
11
52%
 
Total votes: 21

Guest

Post by Guest » Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:53 am

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Denyer wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:The problem stemming from the historical inaccuracies of the text over a vast expanse of time.
I see the problem being more to do with indulgent caveman fancies getting out of hand over time.
Define cavemen? Hehe even that concept is open to debate.
Any Pleistocene Era hominid species existing during the Ice Age(s) with a troglodytic tendency.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that we have regressed from the past till now.
Would there not be evidence of this? And in what directions do you envisage this regression to have taken? Technological? Social? Cultural? Political? Environmental?

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:47 am

Rebis wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Denyer wrote: I see the problem being more to do with indulgent caveman fancies getting out of hand over time.
Define cavemen? Hehe even that concept is open to debate.
Any Pleistocene Era hominid species existing during the Ice Age(s) with a troglodytic tendency.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that we have regressed from the past till now.
Would there not be evidence of this? And in what directions do you envisage this regression to have taken? Technological? Social? Cultural? Political? Environmental?
The last question clearly inrigues me the most. Have we entered into a global super storm scenario like that of the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow." Even though the timetables of such an event are off, the realities are the same. In China it is now required viewing for all of the countries scientists. Clearly with the movement of magnetic north getting closer to true north a pole shift is not out of the question. Events that perhaps caused the last cataclysm you describe as the ice age.

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:48 am

[quote="Redstreak"] So many things are possible, and sometimes ya just have to have faith...something to believe in. [quote]

Now don't take this the wrong way, nor as a challenge, but as a question.

Is it really faith in something if you think that there could be a chance that the opposite is true? If you are Jewish, then I take it then that you believe, as I do, that there is a supreme being who is omniscient, knowing the hearts and minds of His creation. Would He not know then your thought process, seeing it more as one of 'just in case' rather than, ' yes for certain, I believe in you'?

I guess belief and faith are something different to everyone.

I am of the belief that whatever path I choose in life, it neither helps Him nor hurts Him to any degree, neither adds to His power nor detracts from it. I am of the belief that if He helps me, then there is none that can hurt me. And if He hurts me, there is none that can help me.

My belief is of a Creator whose mercy is greather than His wrath. But more importantly, I believe God to be just and to have established the rights of all things. That is why I believe that whatever occurs in this life, whether it be good deeds or bad ones, I will have to answer for it. One cannot claim God to love all His creation, then He send most to Hell, for if He truly loves all His creation, why punish them for eternity? Hell and Heaven exist but for just ends. This is what I believe.


Anyway, discussion about worship, God's attributes, heaven, hell, etc are not worth discussing when the idea of God's existence is not first accepted. And by the looks of it, most are not of this belief, so I will keep my input in this discussion to the original question, 'Is there a God?

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:52 am

Denyer wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote:I am sure that unless homosexuals are not people too
What are you talking about?

This is a sarcastic comment. Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

User avatar
Redstreak
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:217
Joined:Sun Dec 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location:Detroit, MI, USA

Post by Redstreak » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:05 am

Why is it that unless someone thinks exactly the way you do that you immediately have to question them? Read my post again then see if your question still applies, because I never said that I believe in God, but just in case. I said, I believe in Him, and that I'd rather be wrong about His existence in that vein than not believe in Him and find out I'm wrong. That is not a 'just in case'. That is my response to ppl that ask me why I believe in Him despite this, that, or the other.

You need to read what I wrote, not what you want to see. It was pretty cut and dry, I should not have just had to waste five minutes explaining it to you.

And realize that while I understand your passion about this subject, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to keep it to one thread. Between this and Smooth's Gay thread, this discussion is rightly or wrongly dominating the board. It should really just be in one place.
Image
Sex with animals? There's no time, man! --Master Shake

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:34 am

Redstreak wrote:Why is it that unless someone thinks exactly the way you do that you immediately have to question them? Read my post again then see if your question still applies, because I never said that I believe in God, but just in case. I said, I believe in Him, and that I'd rather be wrong about His existence in that vein than not believe in Him and find out I'm wrong. That is not a 'just in case'. That is my response to ppl that ask me why I believe in Him despite this, that, or the other.

You need to read what I wrote, not what you want to see. It was pretty cut and dry, I should not have just had to waste five minutes explaining it to you.

And realize that while I understand your passion about this subject, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to keep it to one thread. Between this and Smooth's Gay thread, this discussion is rightly or wrongly dominating the board. It should really just be in one place.
Sheesh. Calm down, man. If I could give you those five minutes back, I would. :roll:

I'm not the moderator of this site. If you want it kept to one thread, ask a moderator.

User avatar
Redstreak
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:217
Joined:Sun Dec 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location:Detroit, MI, USA

Post by Redstreak » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:44 am

I have. And why is it when I point out something that shows a person being ignorant/oblivious/etc, they immediately tell me to calm down, as though I were getting excited over some piddly internet topic?
Image
Sex with animals? There's no time, man! --Master Shake

User avatar
Metal Vendetta
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts:4950
Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
Location:Lahndan, innit

Post by Metal Vendetta » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:05 am

Ultimate Weapon wrote:The last question clearly inrigues me the most. Have we entered into a global super storm scenario like that of the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow." Even though the timetables of such an event are off, the realities are the same. In China it is now required viewing for all of the countries scientists.
That's rather unfair on the scientists, isn't it? I know the Chinese government has a pretty poor human rights record, but that just strikes me as being unneccesarily cruel...
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:55 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:Is it really faith in something if you think that there could be a chance that the opposite is true?
Well, it greatly increases the chance you'll drive yourself insane trying to put all doubts from your mind. The brain doesn't cope with negatives well, and "I must be strong; my religion is not false" contains the question "is my religion false?"

User avatar
sprunkner
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2229
Joined:Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:00 am
Location:Bellingham, WA

Post by sprunkner » Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:02 pm

Denyer wrote:
sprunkner wrote:people become religious for undefinable reasons
What's hard to define or explain? People don't accept explanations, certainly.
sprunkner wrote:I saw a successful 79-year old businessman and his wife, both very rich and very settled, go from being born-again Christians to Mormons because, when they went to church, they said "We felt at home."
An excellent way to select a religion. Not necessarily advantageous to society depending on what the religion in question does, but great for individuals. Gut feeling is explicable (not all psychology is bunkum) but train it well and it can serve well.
That's what I mean. It's related to the warm fuzzies that come with volunteer work, or helping a child learn something. If God is love (1 John 4:7-11), then love would be the end and the desire of his plan. So the undefinable feeling I am talking about would be a measure of God's love, felt in some way that is different to you than it is to others. Guided by that, true religion would be that which brings you closer to His love and gives you opportunities to share it.

As a pure, universal love, it would also not be completely comprehended by weak and fallible human beings, and they would act strangely, believing themselves justified by their faith. So, I'm basically saying, "don't judge the religion by its members." God knows that I hope all of you don't judge Mormonism by Donny Osmond or the Olympic scandal.

If you want to see people who live their religion, they are not on TV bragging about it. They are in soup kitchens.
Last edited by sprunkner on Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:03 pm

Denyer wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote:Is it really faith in something if you think that there could be a chance that the opposite is true?
Well, it greatly increases the chance you'll drive yourself insane trying to put all doubts from your mind. The brain doesn't cope with negatives well, and "I must be strong; my religion is not false" contains the question "is my religion false?"
And this brings the question up, how many really, truly have faith and utter certainty of it?

I will admit to you that I question even myself sometimes, the reason being, if one truly has faith all the time, why get upset about anything, why worry about anything? Because we are human, I suppose. Faith is not a static thing, but dynamic, with ups and downs.

Though I am not the judge of hearts and intentions, I can say that I have met one person who by all outward appearances really had such strong faith that they appeared nigh unshakable. Not only that, but this one old man did and said things that had no logical explanation. One would call them miraculous (and not by my standards, but by most standards). I could go into details, but most here would surely insist there was some other explanation.

User avatar
sprunkner
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2229
Joined:Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:00 am
Location:Bellingham, WA

Post by sprunkner » Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:13 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote: And this brings the question up, how many really, truly have faith and utter certainty of it?
I would say I'm certain. Not because of anything I can explain, but because of feelings of God's love which attend certain activities-- sincere prayer, for example.

[/quote]I will admit to you that I question even myself sometimes, the reason being, if one truly has faith all the time, why get upset about anything, why worry about anything? Because we are human, I suppose. Faith is not a static thing, but dynamic, with ups and downs.

Though I am not the judge of hearts and intentions, I can say that I have met one person who by all outward appearances really had such strong faith that they appeared nigh unshakable. Not only that, but this one old man did and said things that had no logical explanation. One would call them miraculous (and not by my standards, but by most standards). I could go into details, but most here would surely insist there was some other explanation.[/quote]

I met a guy like that, too. He was an old, chain-smoking black man who lived in a bad neighborhood. He knew every homeless kid in the city and let most of them stay with him when they needed a place to go. Amazing guy. Named Elmo.

Dead Head
Back stabbing Seeker
Posts:309
Joined:Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

Post by Dead Head » Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:39 pm

sprunkner wrote:He knew every homeless kid in the city and let most of them stay with him when they needed a place to go. Amazing guy. Named Elmo.
Did he ask them to tickle him?

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts:9750
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location:Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:49 pm

Image

Dead Head
Back stabbing Seeker
Posts:309
Joined:Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

Post by Dead Head » Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:01 pm

Best First wrote:ah, faith...
:lol: And that's only one mild example amongst many examples of the unnecessary ill effects of religion.

It's like a Monty Python sketch! :lol:

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:05 pm

Dead Head wrote:
sprunkner wrote:He knew every homeless kid in the city and let most of them stay with him when they needed a place to go. Amazing guy. Named Elmo.
Did he ask them to tickle him?
:lol:

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:52 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:And this brings the question up, how many really, truly have faith and utter certainty of it?
None. Those who protest most loudly perhaps least of all.
sprunkner wrote:It's related to the warm fuzzies that come with volunteer work, or helping a child learn something.
Mmm. Watching someone's eyes light up as they grasp a new concept is the best part.
sprunkner wrote:God knows that I hope all of you don't judge Mormonism by Donny Osmond or the Olympic scandal.
I try to judge people as people, regardless of which institutions with extremely chequered pasts they choose to pin their colours to.

Nor do I hold little things like a childhood friend being murdered by her father against your particular cult, although I think many non-religious people are little warier of others who justify things with recourse to "an invisible guy wants me to do things this way" or similar.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:34 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:
And this brings the question up, how many really, truly have faith and utter certainty of it?
I know that in ancient Israel they had a large fire pit with brimstone they used to throw criminlas into. I believe the Hebrew word is gogilhem. Thus creating the myth about fire and brimstone in the afterlife. It is not hard for people to imagine such a fate let alone by corralled into safeguarding against it. That is what fear control does in case you haven't noticed.

Dead Head
Back stabbing Seeker
Posts:309
Joined:Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

Post by Dead Head » Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:49 pm

Dead Head wrote:Eh? Copernicus was hung?
Any more info on this, Commander Shockwav?
Commander Shockwav wrote:Start with embryology.
Does the subject have the facts on God's existance? Again, it won't. But I can see why it's a useful area of study (it's near the realm of creation 'n' all that stuff) for someone to use as a proverbial launchpad to jump to baseless conclusions.
Commander Shockwav wrote:
Dead Head wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote:it did nothing but solidify my feeling that a supreme being must exist.
I see. 'A feeling'. As expected.
Yes, a feeling, but not a blind one. A feeling based on logic. Don't presume that every believer in a Creator shuns logic. All my beliefs are based on a logic you obviously don't understand.
Yes, a blind feeling. I'm sure you don't shun all logic, just certain critically important bits! So... logic, eh?



A believer's syllogism put forth would be something like:

"There is no evidence to disprove a higher power"
----------------------------------------------
"Therefore I worship an existing higher power"


It's completely broken deductive reasoning, and leads to a completely false conclusion. Even with the addition of the argument "There is no evidence to prove a higher power" the conclusion remains hopelessly illogical.


An agnostic non-believer's syllogism put forth would be something like:

"There is no evidence to prove a higher power"
"There is no evidence to disprove a higher power"
------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore I don't worship an unverified higher power"


It's a completely valid conclusion in this case. Fully logical. (This is me, by the way).


An athestic non-believer's syllogism put forth would be something like:

"There is no evidence to prove a higher power"
------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore I don't worship a non-existing higher power"


It's completely broken deductive reasoning, and leads to a completely false conclusion. Even with the addition of the argument "There is no evidence to disprove a higher power" the conclusion remains hopelessly illogical.
Commander Shockwav wrote:Call it arbitrary if you want, its a matter of perception and personal opinion.
Uh oh. Personal opinions and hasty conclusions.
Commander Shockwav wrote:Biology class? Give me a break. Though your sarcasm is truly an amazingly annoying thing, I say again. Study it. Not some basic cheap **** biology book.
See launchpad comment above.
Commander Shockwav wrote:The biological science are not in the least bit vague, which are the basis for my argument. Until you study a book of embryology, don't regard my words as 'baseless'. After you do so, then you may label it as such. But until you do, your words are not convincing to me in the least bit.
I said the language you used to try to tie all this to real facts that God(s) exist(s) is vague. Again, over the pages of this thread, there's no evidence, embryology-derived or otherwise, to prove a God. Simple as that. Until you provide these direct concrete facts, your words are not convincing to me in the least bit.
Commander Shockwav wrote:Why should someone listen to an agnostic or atheist whose basis for the absence of a supreme being is just their feeling? I'm giving you evidence. Just because others have read embryology texts and not come to a conclusion of God's existence, don't presume to think you would come to the same conclusion.
It's not feeling, it's purely logical. Personally, I don't "feel" inside of me a niggling absence of 'God'. It's believers that have the shaky ground of 'feeling' to stand on. Once more, there's no evidence been presented at all, at all, at all. And there's still the glaringly fantastical, 'miraculously' illogical leap to conclude that God exists.
Dead Head wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote:Again, the onus is not on others to convince you of God's existence
Yes, yes it very much is.
People's subsequent actions based on their irrational religious beliefs and silly customs that have a negative, needless effect on others' situations is a driver behind this point. Say, if some person's religious custom is that people with more than 5 feckles on their back are out of favour with God, and his "religious scriptures" proscribe these freckle-devils be ostracised (or worse) because if you love God you should do his will, then if I am such a person with more than 5 feckles on my back, I'm in for some (or all) of my freedom being transgressed. The only thing that would prevent me, as such a "freckle-devil", would be to live in a country that has some degree of seperation of church and state, giving some bodily protection by it's secular or near-secular laws to me. At that point, the religious people have to grudgingly comply with the law of the land, and are forced to simply 'tolerate' these ungodly "freckle-devils" instead of what they'd like to do to them, given full "freedom to exercise God's will".
Please address the particular example given here, Commander Shockwav.

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:12 pm

Dead Head wrote:
Dead Head wrote:Eh? Copernicus was hung?
Any more info on this, Commander Shockwav?
Admittedly, I'm not sure if it was Copernicus that was the man in question. It might have been Kepler or Galileo. I have to go back and check. Anyway, this particular scientist claimed that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of the universe. The belief of that time was the opposite. So they killed him. Or was it they imprisoned him?
:bf:

Anyway, some scientist got the shaft, big time, because he went against popular opinion. That was my point. I have to look up who it was.


As far as your other comments, I will try my best to explain where I'm coming from, but I'm limited in time here as my wife will beat the living **** out of me if i don't come home.

But very briefly, the reason I chose embryology is because of the complexity of this subject, the way a single celled, microscopic organism becomes a person such as yourself. There are forces at work there that boggle the mind. If one were to compare the steps of how the universe functions on the grander scale, like the physical sciences, to the intricate steps within the initial unicellular being that we are when sperm meets egg, it is the latter that is more amazing, to me anyway.

Now, of course, the obvious reasoning that will follow is that, well, yes, it is amazing, but in all likelihood every step of the embryologic process has a scientific explanation, and if we don't find it now, we will know it later. And I agree with that. The beauty of science is that there is an explanation we understand, or will eventually understand. But how many of these mysteries must we uncover before we ask ourselves not "how" but "why"? It all happens, and the "how" will some day be clear to us, if it isn't already, but the "why"?

The "why" is my point. Within a cell, there are microscopic structures we call ribosomes, mitochodria, endoplasmic reticulum, etc.. They can be seen clearly only with electron microscopy, a super powerful type of microscope. They send even smaller signals to each other to accomplish many different tasks. Some signals are even atomic or magnetic, some using electrical charges, both positive and negative. It is not a few of these interaction that occur, rather, millions of such simulatenous interactions that occur. It is a delicate intricate dance that happens in a cell, a world, no a universe, into and of itself. And within that universe, things happen "seemingly" on a will of its own. This organelle moves here, that one there. It touches this one here, triggering it, but not the million others. If it doesn't touch that very one, the whole world falls apart, the cell dies. A relatively more grand example, when a embryo makes its way to fetus, this cell moves here, that one there. The 49th cell formed must touch or signal to the 107th cell made, otherwise instead of muscle tissue you get skeletal tissue. An intricate, elaborate dance.

Yes, I know, all with scientific explanation. The "how", I understand.

Again, its the "why"? What force guides these things to happen? Evolutionist would claim it survival. Which would mean that somehow a ribosome, no, a molecule has a will of its own to "be", to exist. Now if God is a far fetched concept one has difficulty grasping, is not the idea that an atom or a molecule having a "brain" and "will" of its own just as unbelievable?
Last edited by Commander Shockwav on Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts:9750
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location:Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:28 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote: Again, its the "why"? What force guides these things to happen? Evolutionist would claim it survival. Which would mean that somehow a ribosome, no, a molecule has a will of its own to "be", to exist. Now if God is a far fetched concept one has difficulty grasping, is not the idea that an atom or a molecule having a "brain" and "will" of its own just as unbelievable?
again, its 'why' is your personal explanation the best?

"There must be something" is a million miles from "my explanation is the right one"

Existence is fueled by a contradiction - something kicked it off, so what created that something, but that doesn't in any way justify fantastical human centric explanations. Its laughable to invoke the majesty of creation to prove there is a singular diety then at the same time suggest that humanity is somehow special.

Why waste time trying to explain stuff we can't, lets just deal with what we do [b[know[/b] and get on with the ride.
Image

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:39 pm

Best First wrote: again, its 'why' is your personal explanation the best?.
Again, its 'where' did I say my personal explanation was something you should adopt?
Best First wrote: "There must be something" is a million miles from "my explanation is the right one"
Thank God, yes God, that the only thing you are putting in my mouth are words.
Best First wrote:Its laughable to invoke the majesty of creation to prove there is a singular diety
Laughable to you. Awe striking to the highest degree to me. Don't downplay the wonder that is creation. God is my ultimate explanation, yours may be something else, but you embarass yourself for thinking creation to be something banal and unimpressive.
Best First wrote:Why waste time trying to explain stuff we can't, lets just deal with what we do [b[know[/b] and get on with the ride
Because, to quote Jetifre, "Amongst the mysteries of science lies the key to victory." And enlightenment.

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts:9750
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location:Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:11 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:
Best First wrote: again, its 'why' is your personal explanation the best?.
Again, its 'where' did I say my personal explanation was something you should adopt?
so... you have a personal explanation that you don't think other people should adopt? I see...
Best First wrote: "There must be something" is a million miles from "my explanation is the right one"
Thank God, yes God, that the only thing you are putting in my mouth are words.
mmm, addressing the point that has been prevading pretty much your entire arguement though?
Best First wrote:Its laughable to invoke the majesty of creation to prove there is a singular diety
Laughable to you. Awe striking to the highest degree to me. Don't downplay the wonder that is creation. God is my ultimate explanation, yours may be something else, but you embarass yourself for thinking creation to be something banal and unimpressive.
ah, so i am putting words in yourmouth? Yes... i said no such thing. My very point, that you have so wonderfully failed to percieve, is that you insult the epic nature of creation by having the arrogance to apply and argue for explanations for such things for which we at present can conceive no rational explanation. Why do you feel compelled to explain all things, when in terms of the information available we are clearly not equipped to do so? Do you really think you are capable of explaing everything?

personally i don't presume so much...

Best First wrote:Why waste time trying to explain stuff we can't, lets just deal with what we do [b[know[/b] and get on with the ride
Because, to quote Jetifre, "Amongst the mysteries of science lies the key to victory." And enlightenment.
Then why are you arguing against empiricsm and acting as a fanatical advocate of baseless ********? I quote "What force guides these things to happen?" - your only justification for the notion that there even is a force can be surmised as 'oh but there must be!'. Genuine advocate of rational thought don't insist on plugging the gaps of that which cannot be currently explained with their favourite fairy tale.
Last edited by Best First on Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:29 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:Again, its the "why"? What force guides these things to happen?
You don't need to work down to the atomic level to ask that question—all you're doing is saying "we can't see any further" and concluding that the Earth is flat.
Commander Shockwav wrote:the "how" will some day be clear to us, if it isn't already
Doubtful. The act of observation changes things.
Commander Shockwav wrote:its the "why"? What force guides these things to happen? Evolutionist would claim it survival.
No, it wouldn't. Evolution is the theory of things propagating because patterns happen to settle in forms which allow for survivability—not that a sub-level of matter has conscious agency.

Science, unlike certain other ways of looking at the world, doesn't pretend to offer a complete explanation for everything. Some people see this as a void and attempt to fill in what they regard as 'gaps' with rationalisations. Others don't feel threatened by this lack of surety.
Commander Shockwav wrote:Don't downplay the wonder that is creation [...] you embarass yourself for thinking creation to be something banal
I'm not sure how you managed to turn Paul's phrase "the majesty of creation" into "you don't agree with me, therefore you're being childish."

Well, I am reasonably sure, but this will end extremely badly if it gets into psychoanalysis.

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts:9750
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location:Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:38 pm

Denyer wrote:Others don't feel threatened by this lack of surety.
or to an extent they do, but they percieve that plugging these gaps with things of their own creation in no way mitigates that feeling of threat, and get on with it.
Image

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:50 pm

Best First wrote:or to an extent they do, but they percieve that plugging these gaps with things of their own creation in no way mitigates that feeling of threat, and get on with it.
Sorry, wasn't entirely clear there: they can accept a range of things may be the case, unknowability not translating into paralysis or fundamentalism.

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:24 am

oops
Last edited by Commander Shockwav on Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:28 am

Commander Shockwav wrote:
Best First wrote:
Denyer wrote:Others don't feel threatened by this lack of surety.
or to an extent they do, but they percieve that plugging these gaps with things of their own creation in no way mitigates that feeling of threat, and get on with it.
As I stated above, the gaps are certainly fillable by things based on logic and reason. There is a scientific explanation for practically everything we experience, as this very existence functions through the laws of nature, whether physical, chemical, or biological.

You seem to believe that such an awareness cannot coexist with the belief in a higher power. This is where we differ. From my experiences and yes, introspection, there is a wonder and beauty in a very aesthetic sense that pervades the sciences as a whole, an order and structure that implicates to my senses (whether or not you think them primitive or flawed is irrelevent to me) the presence and workings of a higher power.

Perhaps its the renditions given of this higher power that turn many away from such consideration. Some believe this higher power to take the form of cows. Some believe this higher power to have lived as a man. Many have thought of this higher power as stone figurines. Some believe this higher power to be more than one.

My belief, for the reasons I stated in many posts earlier, is in a single higher power whose essence and attributes cannot be understood except to the degree that this power wills, a power that creates not just things in time, but the very fabric of time itself. After all, time is simply another of many laws of nature. Time itself is a creation.

I think many religions give form to the Creator to have a bridge of sort, a way to relate to and understand it. In essence, bring the Creator down to the level of creation, so that a kind of physical bond can be shared with it.

And before someone speaks out about how I'm raining on their agnostic or atheistic parade, let me reiterate. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am stating my belief. You want to think its a bunch of ********, that's just fine and dandy. Your stance on the matter is clear, as is mine.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:22 am

Commander Shockwav wrote:You seem to believe that such an awareness cannot coexist with the belief in a higher power.
Where are you getting this from?
Commander Shockwav wrote:time is simply another of many laws of nature.
As is cause/effect. Assuming infinity to be more than a concept, all possibilities exist simultaneously -- whether mutually exclusive or otherwise.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:11 am

Denyer wrote: Assuming infinity to be more than a concept,
It is not possible to conceptualize infinity from with the confines of the 3rd dimension.

Post Reply