Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Well, dang.... Thanks for being honest about it. That's the chance adults take when they talk with non-believers, huh...? Hmmm.... Yep make the delineation I didn't...
Everyone, e v e r y o n e... engaging in discourse as adults...
Shanna wrote: "Well, dang.... Thanks for being honest about it. That's the chance adults take when they talk with non-believers, huh...? Hmmm....
Yep make the delineation I didn't...
Everyone, e v e r y o n e...."
It seemed to be implied.
Here's the deal, though. Knowing this ....
Knowing a fair percentage of non-believers might ask questions here not giving a hoot what the answer might be but might ask only for the opportunity to say something like, "You're wrong!" ....
Knowing this, some adults might not want to engage, might not want to answer those questions ... That option will need to be respected. You know. No more talking about hit-and-runs. No more picking at cHriS for not answering questions openly.
Everyone is an adult ... maybe ... with the exception of the pre-teen/teen that a non-believer went after awhile back. (Though, to his credit, I think Travis cautioned that non-believer regarding the possible youth of the girl. Not that his words changed the non-believer's course. Think the person said one is never too young to ...)
But, yeah, everyone is an adult. Given that, though, some adults will only answer the questions of people who sincerely want to understand them and their answers.
Good call ....
And, ... respect for that. No poking over it. It would seem hypocritical, I think, given everything.
Yep make the delineation I didn't...
Everyone, e v e r y o n e...."
It seemed to be implied.
Here's the deal, though. Knowing this ....
Knowing a fair percentage of non-believers might ask questions here not giving a hoot what the answer might be but might ask only for the opportunity to say something like, "You're wrong!" ....
Knowing this, some adults might not want to engage, might not want to answer those questions ... That option will need to be respected. You know. No more talking about hit-and-runs. No more picking at cHriS for not answering questions openly.
Everyone is an adult ... maybe ... with the exception of the pre-teen/teen that a non-believer went after awhile back. (Though, to his credit, I think Travis cautioned that non-believer regarding the possible youth of the girl. Not that his words changed the non-believer's course. Think the person said one is never too young to ...)
But, yeah, everyone is an adult. Given that, though, some adults will only answer the questions of people who sincerely want to understand them and their answers.
Good call ....
And, ... respect for that. No poking over it. It would seem hypocritical, I think, given everything.
Shanna wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P "
Thanks for the chuckle, Shanna.
Perhaps you weren't reading posts when I..."
Missed some questions ... or ... perhaps you chose not to answer ... Your choice. Just wanted to point it out in case it was the former and not the latter.
"Question...
Did you forget all the times I've questioned believers? Or, did you make that comment to make yourself feel better? You know.... Shannon's just like "us".... Or, is there another reason you'd imply I don't do something that I actually do, as anyone who has read the last 85 pages is fully aware? Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek again."
(In all of this, though, I truly appreciate your honesty. I'm not full of it when I say that. I appreciate the fact that you've been honest with regard to this.)
Thanks for the chuckle, Shanna.
Perhaps you weren't reading posts when I..."
Missed some questions ... or ... perhaps you chose not to answer ... Your choice. Just wanted to point it out in case it was the former and not the latter.
"Question...
Did you forget all the times I've questioned believers? Or, did you make that comment to make yourself feel better? You know.... Shannon's just like "us".... Or, is there another reason you'd imply I don't do something that I actually do, as anyone who has read the last 85 pages is fully aware? Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek again."
(In all of this, though, I truly appreciate your honesty. I'm not full of it when I say that. I appreciate the fact that you've been honest with regard to this.)
Shannon wrote: "Missed some questions ... or ... perhaps you chose not to answer ... Your choice. Just wanted to point it out in case it was the former and not the latter."Question...
Did you forget all the times I've questioned believers? Or, did you make that comment to make yourself feel better? You know.... Shannon's just like "us".... Or, is there another reason you'd imply I don't do something that I actually do, as anyone who has read the last 85 pages is fully aware? Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek again."
(In all of this, though, I truly appreciate your honesty. I'm not full of it when I say that. I appreciate the fact that you've been honest with regard to this.) "
Sorry I thought my response had covered them, perhaps not directly enough. :)
No I don't forget that you question impatially. I made that comment because we (again general) don't tend to question those that we perceive to be "on the same side", rightly or wrongly, or perhaps because it's paranoid to feel you can't "trust" your own "team mates". I know that's a clumsy and bad analogy, I hope you get the idea.
Shanna wrote: "I made that comment because we (again general) don't tend to question those that we perceive to be "on the same side", rightly or wrongly, or perhaps because it's paranoid to feel you can't "trust" your own "team mates". "
The thing of it is ... you weren't posting to "we" ...
You posted directly to me and said, "But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P"
So, ....
I'm guessing you can see why I was unclear and didn't feel the questions had been answered.
Speaking to something I posted the other day, perhaps we could learn from this week's conversation. Perhaps, when addressing people, we could address the people we're speaking with and not all other theists or non-believers or people in general.
Especially when saying something like, "But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P"
You see, Shanna, unlike many, I guess, I'm play teams. I'm here to talk about truths and call things like I see them, regardless of which "side" someone might be on.
The thing of it is ... you weren't posting to "we" ...
You posted directly to me and said, "But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P"
So, ....
I'm guessing you can see why I was unclear and didn't feel the questions had been answered.
Speaking to something I posted the other day, perhaps we could learn from this week's conversation. Perhaps, when addressing people, we could address the people we're speaking with and not all other theists or non-believers or people in general.
Especially when saying something like, "But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P"
You see, Shanna, unlike many, I guess, I'm play teams. I'm here to talk about truths and call things like I see them, regardless of which "side" someone might be on.
It seemed to be implied.Sorry for the confusion.
Here's the deal, though. Knowing this ....
Knowing a fair percentage of non-believers might ask questions here not giving a hoot what the answer might be but might ask only for the opportunity to say something like, "You're wrong!" ....
I don't know individual motives, but then nor does anyone that's why there's no guarantee.
Knowing this, some adults might not want to engage, might not want to answer those questions ... That option will need to be respected. You know. No more talking about hit-and-runs. No more picking at cHriS for not answering questions openly.
That's their perogative, I have no problem with that. We can't know they're a hit-and-run until the opt not to respond. And of course it's respected I doubt anyone is privately messaging ( or in any other way contacting them, stalking or demanding anything) disrespecting this.
cHriS' problem is that he seems to want to engage and has been observed to be dishonest and cHriS gives as good as he gets... He's no victim Shannon, he's here because he wants to be for whatever reason. And I must point out the person you seem have the best rapport with, that has with biggest "problem" him...
Everyone is an adult ... maybe ... with the exception of the pre-teen/teen that a non-believer went after awhile back. (Though, to his credit, I think Travis cautioned that non-believer regarding the possible youth of the girl. Not that his words changed the non-believer's course. Think the person said one is never too young to ...)
I don't check everyone's profile to see their age, do you? Unless they declare themselves a minor (and goodreads just makes declared minors profiles, private and it looks just the same as a adult with a private profile) you just can't know...
But, yeah, everyone is an adult. Given that, though, some adults will only answer the questions of people who sincerely want to understand them and their answers.
Choice...
Good call ....
And, ... respect for that. No poking over it. It would seem hypocritical, I think, given everything.
It's all cool (as my brother would say) :). Oh and in case no one has thanks for your honesty, you are honestly one of the most principled persons had I've ever had the pleasure of "meeting".
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I made that comment because we (again general) don't tend to question those that we perceive to be "on the same side", rightly or wrongly, or perhaps because it's paranoid to feel yo..."True sorry, it was tongue in cheek, I see now the insult sorry.
Shanna wrote: "True sorry, it was tongue in cheek, I see now the insult sorry. "
Thanks. Accepted.
Regarding cHriS, .... I'm aware he has given as good as he has gotten. Of course, that's exactly what cHriS said to me when I told him it was inappropriate to question Gary's sexuality and assume, if he stands for the rights of homosexuals, etc..., that he may be one. Gary gives as good as he gets, Shannon. You should know that since he's given to you plenty. That's how it went.
The thing of it is .... Yes, there are times when I stand up against what I hold to be wrong; I've stood up for people. I'd be an absolute liar if I didn't realize that and admit it. But, that's not my whole existence, my only story. There are times when I simply call things because they are so obviously true. If it's true that some non-believers ask questions simply for the chance to, for all intents and purposes, "prove" believers wrong, and if, when this is pointed out, the only real argument that ensues is that people don't have to answer questions, there should be no more poking. Further, it makes it more difficult for non-believers who actually do want to understand and learn what a believer's perspective might be. Who is to say if that non-believer is really on the up-and-up? I'd say track record. But, you and I both know we don't always deal with people based on their track record. That's not just about you and the above. That's an issue that comes up all the time, here and in our actual lives, I imagine.
Thanks. Accepted.
Regarding cHriS, .... I'm aware he has given as good as he has gotten. Of course, that's exactly what cHriS said to me when I told him it was inappropriate to question Gary's sexuality and assume, if he stands for the rights of homosexuals, etc..., that he may be one. Gary gives as good as he gets, Shannon. You should know that since he's given to you plenty. That's how it went.
The thing of it is .... Yes, there are times when I stand up against what I hold to be wrong; I've stood up for people. I'd be an absolute liar if I didn't realize that and admit it. But, that's not my whole existence, my only story. There are times when I simply call things because they are so obviously true. If it's true that some non-believers ask questions simply for the chance to, for all intents and purposes, "prove" believers wrong, and if, when this is pointed out, the only real argument that ensues is that people don't have to answer questions, there should be no more poking. Further, it makes it more difficult for non-believers who actually do want to understand and learn what a believer's perspective might be. Who is to say if that non-believer is really on the up-and-up? I'd say track record. But, you and I both know we don't always deal with people based on their track record. That's not just about you and the above. That's an issue that comes up all the time, here and in our actual lives, I imagine.
A few years ago, some jolly pals and I went to the Natural History Museum in Dublin to learn stuff. We were wandering around when one of the Museum staff asked us if we would like to join the tour that a lecturer from Trinity College was doing for some children. Not being proud, we eagerly followed along, and even got little name-tags.So about an hour passes of this well-informed and engaging chap showing us the sights and the beasties, and when he had finished and all the children had stopped cooing and pointing and pressing their noses up against the exhibits, the lecturer offered the floor to questions. Immediately one little girl's hand shot up. She asked: "Why are there animals and things?"
It's a good question, it's an appealling question. And even though I know perfectly well that there are relatively uninspiring reflex answers on both sides of this debate about what the explanation might be - God or Evolution, the traditional MMA of Creationism versus Science - and that some of these answers are representative of certain truths, I like to think (irrespective of any absolutes) it's more complicated than that, and that the little girl was posing a pretty nifty question without even knowing it. After all, it's been about 13 years, and I've been pondering it ever since.
I'll never get that you know, it's endlessly frustrating for me that homosexuality it even still regarded as a way to denigrate someone. My friends teenage son calls things he doesn't like gay or some variant on it, I say to him with our beautifully expressive language, particularly when insulting something, "gay" is the best you can come up with? perhaps because my (step)sister is it's close to the bone for me. Ad hominem is over the mark...
Michael wrote: "A few years ago, some jolly pals and I went to the Natural History Museum in Dublin. We were wandering around when one of the Museum staff asked us if we would like to join the tour that a lecture...""Why?" is a philosophical question and of course one religion has it's "answers" for, but not one for science... not in that sense anyway.
How?, What? When? Where? they are questions for science..
Shanna wrote: "Why?" is a philosophical question, not one for science..Should have thought of that and slapped that little girl down for her mistake. 8o) Seriously though, question's a question and it got me thinking, genuinely pondering and subsequently discussing it with other people. Like now for instance. Don't care if came out of a cracker.
Oh I it's think a good question to ponder, answerable? dunno, does there have to be a "why"? And if so, why does there have to be a why?
I think maybe the girl's concept of "why" may have been using the widest possible scope. She was shorter than the height of a walking-stick and may have been wearing an animal-shaped hat so there were unlikely to be nuances in her question. That's why I like it. And as for answerable? Well, that's the rub isn't it..?
True, but I'm sure your version of her question is plenty nuanced... or the pondering would be stale after a while...
I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I am not mistaken, religion is an organization of like minded believers with a person at the top defining the rules for all its followers. Loosely using that simple definition, this is where most people differ in their responses. Many may feel that "religion" is too restrictive, too unbendable: requiring the followers to believe in that particular "religion" on faith alone, never questioning the rules and doctrines.
Hence, science over religion where a resolution to a question is not only accepted but encouraged. Where the many work toward a solution for the "entire" population rather than a segment.
We can read or not read, post or not post - and as I said before, it could be a one-word answer to the actual thread question, or their life story as to why they believe or don't believe. I love it when someone responds to a post with: HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT???? - as if the person owes them an explanation for expressing themselves.
Sharon wrote: "I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I am not mistaken, religion is an organization of like minded believers with ..."
I've lived my life feeling the same way, Sharon. It always made sense to me. Some don't agree on this thread. I, personally, have agreed to use their definition of "religious" and "religion". I can't remember all of their arguments for including belief with religious and religion, other than all three hinge on the belief in a higher power.
I've lived my life feeling the same way, Sharon. It always made sense to me. Some don't agree on this thread. I, personally, have agreed to use their definition of "religious" and "religion". I can't remember all of their arguments for including belief with religious and religion, other than all three hinge on the belief in a higher power.
Shannon wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I am not mistaken, religion is an organization of like minded ..."This is a common occurance, Shannon. I, personally, never give in to what others define if it is contrary to my own belief. For as long as I can remember, people have argued this one fact - religion is belief and belief is religious. So goes the indoctrination of religious organizations.
I disagree. Religion is an organization. Belief is individual. The one nice thing about posts on the internet- we have the opportunity to say exactly what we feel/belive without the problems of face to face confrontation. To post something without being truly honest is a waste of time.
We do need to be conscious of people feelings and not be confrontational just for the sake of arguing.
So nice to find a like minded person as yourself.
Sharon wrote: "I, personally, never give in to what others define if it is contrary to my own belief. "
Likely a wise course of action. ;)
Likely a wise course of action. ;)
Shanna wrote: "True, but I'm sure your version of her question is plenty nuanced... or the pondering would be stale after a while... "Overthinking. And pondering rarely gets stale. Unless it becomes overthinking. Poor girl with her fluffy little hat would never have imagined such scrutiny. I took her question neat, no ice.
Sharon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I am not mistaken, religion is an organization..."My thought has always been, have your personal relationship with deity of your choice, or call it a personal philosophy/belief etc, but if you don't want to use the term religion, then why join in a thread where it plainly states religion in the title?
It can easily come across as dodging terms, but wanting it both ways.
Not trying to sound all 'you kids get off my lawn!', but it's not 'choose belief or science' or personal philosophy over science'.
The terms are in the title, page one
With me, if you believe in a god, then you have a religion, wether it's a named one or a personal one.
Feel free to say 'I don't go to church' or 'am not a part of any organized religion', but belief in god will get you put on the religion part of this chat.
Travis wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I am not mistaken, religion is ..."Tavis, if the question required a one word answer then all the previous comments would be moot. Some wish to explain their choice by defining the choices, just as you did. Even if it is a personal definition.
I would rather live in a world where there is no demarcation between science and religon....As the human knowledge gets improved, such a day will come-I believe!!!
I'd take science, hands down. Religion has always opposed progress, social reform, and societal trends. Humanity has improved despite religion's efforts to influence society. Life improves when we become better, empathetic humans with a sense of justice and true morality. We should set aside the regressive ideas of dusty faiths and open our eyes to possibilities and the promise of a future where everyone matters regardless of gender, orientation, income, and skin color. Too many religions divide us. The human race and our joint global concerns can unite us - science has the power and capacity to do this. Prayer is an empty gesture when we consider what we face.
Sharon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I am not mistake..."That's fine, we've just had this bit pop up a couple times and so I put out my view of the terms in the hopes of avoiding debating the words and concentrate on the ideas they represent.
I'd rather talk to the people who are coming from personal philosophy stand point and weed out the people who are just playing with the words to avoid questions.
Travis wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I wonder if we are confusing religion with belief. A person can believe in a higher being without having a religion. If I..."I understand. I hope what I stated did not offend anyone, that was not my intention. Merely trying to explain my choice. I am the type of person who says what I mean and try not to confuse the issue.
I still debate the issue if you believe in god then you have religion. One is not inclusive of the other.
One is belief, the other is accepting an organization that requires you to adher to their rules. Though this is not the issue of this discussion - or maybe it is since most of the comments are about having religion.
Could science be a religion since it has rules and belivers and organization?? Something to ponder on.
Shanna wrote: cHriS' problem is that he seems to want to engage and has been observed to be dishonest and cHriS gives as good as he gets... This sounds like mud slinging again in the hope some will stick.
My problem is, according to you, that I want to engage. What are you doing here if not engaging?
It has been observed that I am dishonest. Who has observed this? Are you willing to name the observer or maybe it is you who thinks this but are not brave enough to say so and so you write in the third person.
Maybe you will be honest enough to explain how I am dishonest?
I remember some months ago you accusing me of not replying to questions and when I asked for examples you did not give me any. And not only that but you then stopped replying. Now that maybe because you could not find an example and so you just wanted the conversion to go away, or maybe you had a family crisis or something else that kept you away from the Pc for a while and the posts just got lost in time. That happens.
Shanna wrote: He's no victim Shannon, he's here because he wants to be for whatever reason. Correct, until I get fed up of being accused of being dishonest or other names that you or others what to think up. Mostly it is because I have a different point of view which some don’t seem to be able to handle.
Someone here, I forget his name and can’t be bothered to scroll back a few months. ( I remember he is gay and comes from Canada) said, and I am paraphrasing, that he does not want to carry on a discussion with me because he has explained three times and I still don’t get it. In other words after three attempts I am still not agreeing with him. He may have not meant it to sound conceited but that’s the way it came across. And he is not the only one who thinks that way.
With this sort of topic there is no right answer so anyone who thinks they have the answer is, well…………..
Shanna wrote: And I must point out the person you seem have the best rapport with, that has with biggest "problem" him...
Thank god you felt able to point that out. Who has the second biggest problem with me other than Shannon, the rest of the forum maybe?
cerebus wrote: You are free to hold that, but from a scientific perspective it simply doesn't follow. For me 'lack of evidence' is just that, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't require me to fill any void left by that lack with anything. If lack is addressed and that void is filled, great, if not, fine. ..."Forget religion and forget science for a minute.
Is there life after death? Yes or No.
If the answer is 'no' then that's fine we return to dust and like Johnny Cash said 'we may return as a single drop of rain'.
If the answer is 'yes' it will be yes regardless of whether there is religion or science.
We have no evidence either way. But we can wonder, imagine, discuss, talk about, dream or even believe... and this is the thing..... only if we want to.
If you are happy to wait for evidence that's great, but if you 'wonder' that there might be life after death then that leads to other questions, where, how, why.
Maybe it is asking those questions that will lead to finding evidence.
Shanna wrote: The very fact that they can leave freely of their own free will negates the trap portion of your argument."I did not mean it to be taken literally, like a giant pot of honey that someone falls into. More like it's real meaning.
cHriS wrote: "Who has the second biggest problem with me other than Shannon, the rest of the forum maybe? "
I don't have a problem with you, cHriS. I've disagreed with you on certain things, perhaps vehemently from time to time. But, I don't have a problem with you in general.
I don't have a problem with you, cHriS. I've disagreed with you on certain things, perhaps vehemently from time to time. But, I don't have a problem with you in general.
Shannon wrote: "I don't have a problem with you, cHriS. I've disagreed with you on certain things, perh..."
I know you don't Shannon. I meant it to read apart from you.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: "
I don't have a problem with you, cHriS. I've disagreed with you on certain things, perh..."
I know you don't Shannon. I meant it to read apart from you."
Oh! Okay. ;)
I love Johnny Cash, by the way! The Man in Black!
I don't have a problem with you, cHriS. I've disagreed with you on certain things, perh..."
I know you don't Shannon. I meant it to read apart from you."
Oh! Okay. ;)
I love Johnny Cash, by the way! The Man in Black!
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: cHriS' problem is that he seems to want to engage and has been observed to be dishonest and cHriS gives as good as he gets... This sounds like mud slinging again in the hope some wi..."
I have no problem with you, but then, I also don't know you because I haven't really posted on this forum before and I don't know you personally, so I can't judge you. In fact, it would be illogical to judge you based on what little I know.
cHriS wrote: "Forget religion and forget science for a minute. "Ok, in as much as it is possible for me to do that (obviously we all end up with inherent ways of thinking, based on many things)....
cHriS wrote: "Is there life after death? Yes or No."
I understand and appreciate your request for a yes/no answer, in order to avoid prevarication, but in the same way I cannot say 'yes' definitively, I cannot say 'no' definitively. This will sound like the prevarication you are trying to avoid, but the only answer I can give is: I have seen no evidence of one, so I put it in the same basket as other things that people believe but for which I have not seen evidence. Sorry that is not the straight answer requested, but it is an honest answer....For me to say "No" would require me to have evidence that it does not exist, and if I require evidence for "yes" then it would be hypocritical for me to not require it for "no".
cHriS wrote: "If the answer is 'no' then that's fine we return to dust and like Johnny Cash said 'we may return as a single drop of rain'."
Yes, I would agree with that, and would add that it is a thought that doesn't bother everyone. I guess in some ways it highlights the fundamental difference between believers and non-believers, in that as a non-believer I do not feel a great need to apply meaning to things or concepts that I don't think need a meaning. I don't think life, as a concept, needs to have "meaning"....I think an individual life can have meaning in that you can affect people around you, and you can leave the world a better place than you found it (or at least try), but for the grand meaning of "life" as a concept, I am fine with there not being one. I can see why it is attractive to want to have an answer, I was once in that position, but it is not necessary for everyone, it is not a fixed mindset (nor is atheism), and feeling that there is an answer does not, in my opinion, give a universally unique 'solution', in that if it gives a believer comfort and meaning to their life, there are non-believers who can get a similar sense of comfort and meaning elsewhere.
cHriS wrote: "If the answer is 'yes' it will be yes regardless of whether there is religion or science."
Without getting tied up in pedantic semantics about 'science', then yes, this is also something I would agree with. I tend towards the "yes, the falling tree does make a sound" interpretation :)
cHriS wrote: "We have no evidence either way. But we can wonder, imagine, discuss, talk about, dream or even believe... and this is the thing..... only if we want to.
If you are happy to wait for evidence that's great, but if you 'wonder' that there might be life after death then that leads to other questions, where, how, why.
Maybe it is asking those questions that will lead to finding evidence. "
"wonder, imagine, discuss, talk about, dream or even believe" are all great, and are all great starting points for investigation, but where I suspect you and I differ is, if after that investigation (not that there is an "after", investigation is continuous) there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe. Without that reason to believe, I don't, but for you (forgive the assumption, and as ever feel free to contradict, correct or otherwise disagree with) I assume that lack of a reason (or at least, in this example, a 'scientific' reason) is not sufficient. And that's fine, unless as I've said before, that belief, or other similar beliefs, are used to (and forgive me repeating this example, whether it is your opinion or not is not the issue, it is an example) deny something like gay marriage, or to try and push creationism as a science. I understand that a belief in the afterlife is not by itself a rationale that is used in those instances, but I am attempting to highlight where my beef with religion/belief can arise.
Btw, as an atheist I can still say I would love for there to be an afterlife, (especially one that resembles the beliefs of those who say whatever you love most in life will form your personal heaven), and I would love to meet those I have known who have died - but for me, wanting something, no matter how much, cannot make me believe in and of itself.
Shannon wrote: "I love Johnny Cash, by the way! The Man in Black! "I love his version of Nine Inch Nail's Hurt.
Having said that, I always preferred Frank Zappa's cover of Cash's Ring of Fire "I fell into a ring of fire, (Ow! Ow! Ow!)" :)
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I love Johnny Cash, by the way! The Man in Black! "I love his version of Nine Inch Nail's Hurt."
LOVE that album!
LOVE that album!
Shanna wrote: cHriS' problem is that he seems to want to engage and has been observed to be dishonest and cHriS gives as good as he gets... This sounds like mud slinging again in the hope some will stick.
My problem is, according to you, that I want to engage. What are you doing here if not engaging?
Not what I said at all....
It has been observed that I am dishonest. Who has observed this? Are you willing to name the observer or maybe it is you who thinks this but are not brave enough to say so and so you write in the third person.
Maybe you will be honest enough to explain how I am dishonest?
If you don't know who's been calling you a troll and can't help you cHriS/cs
Dissapearing and coming back with a new name and avatar rejoining as a "new" person...
I remember some months ago you accusing me of not replying to questions and when I asked for examples you did not give me any. And not only that but you then stopped replying. Now that maybe because you could not find an example and so you just wanted the conversion to go away, or maybe you had a family crisis or something else that kept you away from the Pc for a while and the posts just got lost in time.
Stuff happens, life gets busy, parents die, BIL's die.
Shanna wrote: He's no victim Shannon, he's here because he wants to be for whatever reason. Correct, until I get fed up of being accused of being dishonest or other names that you or others what to think up. Mostly it is because I have a different point of view which some don’t seem to be able to handle.
Perhaps... perhaps not...
Someone here, I forget his name and can’t be bothered to scroll back a few months. ( I remember he is gay and comes from Canada) said, and I am paraphrasing, that he does not want to carry on a discussion with me because he has explained three times and I still don’t get it. In other words after three attempts I am still not agreeing with him. He may have not meant it to sound conceited but that’s the way it came across. And he is not the only one who thinks that way.
Or he has explained as best he can and you still don't get it. Not getting it and agreeing are two different things
With this sort of topic there is no right answer so anyone who thinks they have the answer is, well…………..
Worth discussing...
Shanna wrote: And I must point out the person you seem have the best rapport with, that has with biggest "problem" him...
Thank god you felt able to point that out. Who has the second biggest problem with me other than Shannon, the rest of the forum maybe?
I never said Shannon had a problem with you, reread the sentence please
Shanna wrote: If you don't know who's been calling you a troll and can't help you cHriS/csNothing at all to do with the word troll, you called me DISHONEST, why don’t you either withdraw it or elaborate by telling me how I have been dishonest.
Shanna wrote: Dissapearing and coming back with a new name and avatar rejoining as a "new" person…
Not true. You are either souring things up or you are the victim of the ’mud sticks’ thing. If something is said often enough one starts to believe it.
I have never disappeared. I took time out. Maybe like Gary is doing now, he has not been here for a while.
I added an avatar because I never had one before, and that was only in the last couple of months.
My account with Goodreads is the same one I started with and my book list is the original one.
As I have explained here already, I changed cs to Chris because most of the folks here were using first names. It’s easy to do. I know some forums don’t let you change you name……this one does.
If I had wanted to come back as someone else, as you seem to be suggesting, I would have made a better job of it.
When I originally joined Goodreads it was just for book recommendations. I happened to see this post and added a simple comment and the rest is history.
Shanna wrote: Stuff happens, life gets busy, parents die, BIL's die.
It happens to us all…………….
Shanna wrote: Or he has explained as best he can and you still don't get it. Not getting it and agreeing are two different things
Yes I know that as well. Thanks for pointing it out though. But it does not alter what I previously said, except maybe in your eyes.
Shanna wrote: I never said Shannon had a problem with you, reread the sentence please.
I never said you did. That would have been a statement, what I asked was a question.
And a rhetorical one at that. But I will agree that it can be read as though I was including Shannon rather than excluding her as I have already confirmed to her.
Shannon wrote: I love Johnny Cash, by the way! The Man in Black! ."
Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings....... The Highwaymen
Heather wrote: I have no problem with you, but then, I also don't know you because I haven't really posted on this forum before and I don't know you personally, so I can't judge you. In fact, it would be illogical to judge you based on what little I know. .."
Thank you............I think?
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: I love Johnny Cash, by the way! The Man in Black!
."
Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings....... The Highwaymen"
Also love that album! There's a song on that album that is so haunting. Can't remember the name. The two lovers, running from someone ... the law or not, I don't know. In the valley of the gun ... he dies and she ... knows her gun is empty but ... That one. Dang! Don't know that Kristofferson can sing well, but he has a gift for songwriting.
."
Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings....... The Highwaymen"
Also love that album! There's a song on that album that is so haunting. Can't remember the name. The two lovers, running from someone ... the law or not, I don't know. In the valley of the gun ... he dies and she ... knows her gun is empty but ... That one. Dang! Don't know that Kristofferson can sing well, but he has a gift for songwriting.
Shannon wrote: "Can't remember the name. The two lovers, running from someone ... the law or not"
SEVEN SPANISH ANGELS!! Took me almost 40 minutes, but .... I'm pretty sure that's the one. She knew her gun was empty and she knew she couldn't win, but her final prayer was answered when the rifles fired again ....
Hmmm.... Now that I've depressed everyone ....
SEVEN SPANISH ANGELS!! Took me almost 40 minutes, but .... I'm pretty sure that's the one. She knew her gun was empty and she knew she couldn't win, but her final prayer was answered when the rifles fired again ....
Hmmm.... Now that I've depressed everyone ....
Shannon wrote: Don't know that Kristofferson can sing well, but he has a gift for songwriting. ..."I have all his albums. I'm not sure singing well has much to do with it. If you know what I mean. :)
Shannon I love those singers too.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Don't know that Kristofferson can sing well, but he has a gift for songwriting. ..."
I have all his albums. I'm not sure singing well has much to do with it. If you know what I mean..."
Yup.
I have all his albums. I'm not sure singing well has much to do with it. If you know what I mean..."
Yup.
cerebus wrote: Ok, in as much as it is possible for me to do that (obviously we all end up with inherent ways of thinking, based on many things)..…Only in as much as this post’s question suggests. We are imagining a world without either religion or science, what about one with neither.
cerebus wrote: I don't think life, as a concept, needs to have "meaning"....I think an individual life can have meaning in that you can affect people around you, and you can leave the world a better place than you found it (or at least try),
…
I do think life has to have meaning, regardless of religion. But I find it hard to understand why, if life has no meaning we need to leave the world in a better place.
I watched a programme a few weeks ago about the mind and creativity. In a nutshell the circuit in a brain was compared to a motorway. The command to the brain travels by the quickest route from a to b. But it was found that in creative people this command did not take the quickest route, in went by the smaller roads and took a bit longer to travel from a to b. Now I am thinking that this could also apply to other ways individuals think.
For example; why would you apply more meaning to a life that ultimately has no meaning while I think the other way round.
cerebus wrote: And that's fine, unless as I've said before, that belief, or other similar beliefs, are used to (and forgive me repeating this example, whether it is your opinion or not is not the issue, it is an example) deny something like gay marriage, or to try and push creationism as a science.
I understand, but since you suggested gay marriage as an example, if someone is against gay marriage, it could be for social reasons and not religious reasons. The danger here is that anyone who does no agree with gay marriage on a forum like this is again quite often in the minority and gets called a bigot etc. But in the real world the vote for and against is a lot more equal.
cerebus wrote: I suspect you and I differ is, if after that investigation (not that there is an "after", investigation is continuous) there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe. Without that reason to believe, I don't, but for you (forgive the assumption, and as ever feel free to contradict, correct or otherwise disagree with) I assume that lack of a reason (or at least, in this example, a 'scientific' reason) is not sufficient
Belief is used because of the lack of evidence, not instead of. I look at it this way….
I think ………………………………I know. I believe comes somewhere in the middle, although I would put it more to the right. Believing is more than just thinking but not quite knowing. It has to do until we know, one way or the other.
Not unlike science, and as I said to Gary some time back. Science is now having to revaluate new evidence about ‘Lucy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Au...
In other words even evidence is not always correct, but we have to go with what we know at the time and not what we might know in the future.
I may believe in a creator and be wrong. You may believe in scientific evidence and be wrong. But for now we can only believe we are right.
I’m sorry I can’t be present in this thread as much as some folks. I can’t answer all questions directed at me, (some days it’s a fight in this house over who gets this computer). Let me just tell you something that might explain why I see Education as a religion.There once was a man named Guatauma Sidartha. He went searching for truth, and eventually became what we know today as the Buddha. When he found what he was searching for, he went back and taught his friends. He devoted the rest of his life to teaching his friends. There are many Buddhist temples in Asia today that were built by those who had been taught by Buddha and his disciples….
However, today if you visit a Buddhist temple in most Asian cities, you will not find a place of learning. You will find a group of holy men who, for a small donation, will offer to pray for you. Their prayers may be for luck, fertility, help passing a school test, or prosperity. There are many superstitious rituals that accompany these prayers and that have infiltrated these temples. The monks do not discourage it. The many donations given by those who see Buddhism as a quid-pro-quo religion of prosperity have managed to corrupt many of those monks into the Eastern version of the Prosperity Gospel.
There is little difference between what has happened to Buddhism and what has happened to Education. I love education. I love teaching and tutoring. Ask any kid who knows me and they know I won’t pass up a teachable moment. But the institution that Education has become is the same as those Buddhist temples. Substitute the monks with tenured professors, substitute the superstitious masses with a corporate hierarchy based on meaningless, ritual certification, and you get the modern religion of Education. Many people believe that they cannot make a decent living unless they buy into this religion, and those at the top—the educators and the corporate administrators, stand to uphold the illusion that they have achieved a rank of enlightenment that cannot possibly be gained except through their educational program. It’s like that eighteenth-century king of France who walked around like a chicken to assert that he was a different, superior breed of man and that none could possibly challenge him for the throne. It’s also like the naked emperor from the children’s story, whose aristocratic associates would do anything to uphold the illusion that he is wearing clothes because, if it falls apart, they all fall with it.
What I'm saying is this: human nature can corrupt anything. Science is no more immune than religion.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Thanks for the chuckle, Shanna.
Perhaps you weren't reading posts when I questioned John..."
"Grow up, princess" Not your message Shannon :P, general advice to all (including myself) engaging in human interaction, yours(general) and my everything, at least what you choose to show, is up for querying by others, nothing is sacred, so to speak.
I guess another reason why believers (I know not you, and I was being tongue in cheek) don't tend to question believers and vice versa for non believers, is that unless someone presents something unique we tend to understand (or think we do...) where the other person is coming from.