The Bible and brainwashing your kids

[mjrpes]

Atheists and Fundamentalists are wrong; only God can say whether he exists or not

[Canidae]

PH, curb your nonsense. I won't speak for atheists, but atheist or not, they are people that are more than the sum or their faith or lackthereof.

Shouldn't you be slamming the liberals over the Gomery inquiry or something?

I need curb nothing. Athiests who bitch and whine and attack others are like the growls of an empty stomach.

As to the Liberals mess: I never liked that cretin Chrétien and as usual blame the French and their thirst for seperatism for this drama.

I do find it funny that no matter what outrageous or even mildly offensive statement I make I get these interesting assumptions as to my positions, but carry on since it encourages me to poke.

[Massive Quasars]

I need curb nothing. Athiests who bitch and whine and attack others are like the growls of an empty stomach.

As to the Liberals mess: I never liked that cretin Chrétien and as usual blame the French and their thirst for seperatism for this drama.

I do find it funny that no matter what outrageous or even mildly offensive statement I make I get these interesting assumptions as to my positions, but carry on since it encourages me to poke.

First of all, to blame the French is a sensible position. They are a complacent group and have no reason to pursue seperatist goals.

As for preachy atheists, if they're proselytizing believers at every turn, they're no better than those they denigrate.

[[xeno]Julios]

To me, the question of whether there is or isn't a god is a bit absurd. It's about as meaningful as the question of whether or not the last male t-rex to die had an odd or even number of testicle hairs.

[Canidae]

To me, the question of whether there is or isn't a god is a bit absurd. It's about as meaningful as the question of whether or not the last male t-rex to die had an odd or even number of testicle hairs.

Actually I don't know of any reptiles that have hairy testicles, let alone external genitalia, but then I don't spend any time pondering things like these as you do so I'll take your word for it rather than believe there is a massive lack of forethought in your construction of that strangely stirring analogy.

[[xeno]Julios]

To me, the question of whether there is or isn't a god is a bit absurd. It's about as meaningful as the question of whether or not the last male t-rex to die had an odd or even number of testicle hairs.

Actually I don't know of any reptiles that have hairy testicles, let alone external genitalia, but then I don't spend any time pondering things like these as you do so I'll take your word for it rather than believe there is a massive lack of forethought in your construction of that strangely stirring analogy.

well the point is that to me, the question of whether or not god exists doesn't really mean anything to me.

When it comes to issues that are framed, or are even capable of being framed, in such a dichotomous manner, the significance of their answer is immediately suspect.


Folks, place your bets:

Is there, or isn't there, a god?!


fuck that - the deeper truths to reality/life are not trivial enough to be addressed with such a stupid question.

imo

[rep]

A tenant of religions is a god or deity or something so, no atheism isn't one.

D3 christian games review

Haha, the comments are great on all of the reviews.

"but nothing will make up for the complete satanic feel and exposure this game will bring. As a twenty-one year old I have to say I was freaked out, disturbed, and horrified by Doom III’s content. I can’t imagine what a thirteen year old would feel like. After hours of exposure to this game, I could see a child’s attitude and personality change because of this game. I would have displayed more images but due to the graphic and satanic nature of this game I just couldn’t show it."

This is a joke, right? How did he review DOOM III? DOOM III is what we all wanted and waited for. DOOM "3" is what we got.

DOOM 3 is a great game, but for the best of the DOOM series, look no further than DOOM 64.

[Massive Quasars]

To me, the question of whether there is or isn't a god is a bit absurd. It's about as meaningful as the question of whether or not the last male t-rex to die had an odd or even number of testicle hairs.

That's not really what this discussion was about, just PH making assumptions and then getting mad when others make assumptions about his assumptive position.

I wasn't speaking for atheists, because I'm not one as I see it defined.

[[xeno]Julios]

The position of my post was incidental - was just adding my 2.1 cents

[Hannibal]

To me, the question of whether there is or isn't a god is a bit absurd.

If by meaningful you mean "possesses cognitive content"....which in the logical empiricist tradition roughly means that it can be tested via scientific methods, then I'd agree. On the other hand, an assload rides on the ultimate answer though doesn't it?

Let's see.....erasure, atoms and the void on one hand.......vs eternal bliss (i.e., all the beer and virgins a man could desire + free ice-cream). Assuming the 'faithful' have their stories roughly correct, (and the Divine is some sort of beneficent amalgam of the various traditions....an omnibus, tolerant God if you will) the only possibility for real shock awaits the atheists since everyone is in the same boat in the negative case.

I'll take the Beer God for $500 Alex!!

[[xeno]Julios]

see the post i made after.

to elaborate a bit:

The fact that people even ask the question does god exist or not, implies that to them, it's conceivable that the answer is independent of their own existence.

Any deeper meaning to life, the universe, and everything is surely essentially connected with the phenomena of our existence.

So the question itself seems to contaminate any "deeper view", by creating these pathological "joints of reality"

It's **sort of** like asking, is there any water in this ocean we live in? Yes or no?

[[xeno]Julios]

Another way of looking at is is this:

any deeper meaning to life, the universe, and everything (hereonin: LUE) should not be amenable to propositional explication. And a dichotomous question is one of the most propositional formulations out there, and is thus the most sinful question in regard to understanding LUE.

The question is (potentially) spiritually dangerous in my opinion.

[Hannibal]

1. The fact that people even ask/ the question does god exist or not, implies that to them, it's conceivable that the answer is independent of their own existence.

2. Any deeper meaning to life, the universe, and everything is surely essentially connected with the phenomena of our existence.

3. So the question itself seems to contaminate any "deeper view", by creating these pathological "joints of reality"

4. It's **sort of** like asking, is there any water in this ocean we live in? Yes or no?

I'm not sure what your trying to hang on the 'observer-dependence' dealio. I've numbered them above, so:

1. If the answer wasn't independent of them, it would all be rather pointless, eh? Not sure what you are getting at here. Religious folks are making real existence claims.

2. Sure, but I'm not sure this (on it's own) presents any dilemna for (thoughtful) religious folks.

3. Are you just suggesting that a 'deeper' view requires secular humanism or something similar?

4. Wha?!?! :icon25:


edit: I see you've written some other stuff....I'll be back later to sort through it all. Begoodhavefun.

[[xeno]Julios]

The conception of god as something as ontologically distinct from the rest of existence is something that I find deeply superficial.

And any conception of god that is not ontologically distinct need not be a god one has faith in. If there is existence, there is a god.

The idea that you can put "faith" in a question of such deep meaning is ludicrous to me.

[mjrpes]

The question "Does God exist?" can be interpreted multiple ways and the problem is that there are a lot of packed assumptions that go along with it.

In our western culture, when this question is asked, what seems to be really asked is "Does God exist in such a way that he revealed himself to a nomadic tribe of Israelites, took the form of man, died on a cross, and now we must follow his commandments in order to receive an eternal afterlife?" Especially important to note is the question of a God that offers a reward system for the right types of actions done. When the question is posited this way it really does become necessary to ask it, as it is not possible for us to answer it on our own, seeing that we were not present at the time all these supposed Biblical events took place and God revealed what his nature and intent was.

If we were looking at the question from a Buddhist perspective, the question would be laughed at, because the nature of God for them is more about self-revelation than dependence on an external source of knowledge (Bible). The question, then, becomes more of an absurdity, something along the lines of "is there any water in this ocean we live in?" I think this is the idea of God you are thinking of , Julios.

[[xeno]Julios]

yes mjrpes, and the reason i think the first conception of god is absurd is because it is a conception amenable to propositional analysis. That is, if we think of a god as a bearded fella on cloud 9, it makes sense to ask if that entity exists or not, and the very fact that we can do this renders the conception suspect to me.

It also points toward a certain disconnectedness between "god" and "reality".

[Hannibal]

Well, I still like my beer God. and yeah, I was only referring to your standard, run-o-the-Western-mill 'personal' God type traditions in my comments.

[mjrpes]

mmm, beer god

[Hannibal]

The conception of god as something as ontologically distinct from the rest of existence is something that I find deeply superficial.

And any conception of god that is not ontologically distinct need not be a god one has faith in. If there is existence, there is a god.

The idea that you can put "faith" in a question of such deep meaning is ludicrous to me.

Well some 'ontological' distinctiveness is required, I think, to retain space for personal indentity (the idea that you have a personal relationship with God and that some aspect of personhood will remain in the afterlife)...and of course all this is deeply grounded by Western ideas of the 'self', etc.

How is it 'deeply superficial' to suggest that there is (at least) some 'ontological seperation' between the creator and the created?

"If there is existence, there is a god." I can't see how this statement distinguishes Christianity from any other religion (to the extent the other religion posits a 'God' of some kind). Buddhism (what little I know of it) doesn't posit a (creator) God at all, and I'm not educated enough in this area to even guess at what 'faith' might mean in a Buddhist tradition.

All this seems to boil down to is: What is God? Is he a personal deity or an impersonal force? Or maybe he is a super large, cosmic muskrat named Zoltarr and we are just living out our days on his wicked little ant farm. I have no idea, of course.

[Massive Quasars]

It's interesting that you bring you up Buddhism, as it seems somewhat popular among Western intellectuals. I know of one person who follows Buddhist philosophy but is secular. He claims that Buddhism as it is followed by many eastern believers has been distorted, mixed with mysticism and supernatural beliefs added afterwards. He believes in Buddhism from the teachings of Buddha directly, as he claims.

...or something like that.

[[xeno]Julios]

How is it 'deeply superficial' to suggest that there is (at least) some 'ontological seperation' between the creator and the created?

perhaps ontological distinctiveness is the wrong phrase to use.

What I mean is that if there cannot be a created without a creator, as a logical necessity, then it doesn't make sense to argue about whether god exists. It wouldn't be a matter of faith.

Yet it is, for many people.

If there is existence, there is a god." I can't see how this statement distinguishes Christianity from any other religion (to the extent the other religion posits a 'God' of some kind). Buddhism (what little I know of it) doesn't posit a (creator) God at all, and I'm not educated enough in this area to even guess at what 'faith' might mean in a Buddhist tradition.

All this seems to boil down to is: What is God? Is he a personal deity or an impersonal force? Or maybe he is a super large, cosmic muskrat named Zoltarr and we are just living out our days on his wicked little ant farm. I have no idea, of course.

Yes - my comments could be seen as an elliptical way of saying I consider "god" to be an absurd conception.

I don't think the idea of faith, conventionally construed, holds up in buddhist-like traditions. They conceive of "spiritual" knowledge as derived directly from experience. It's a whole different form of epistemology, one grounded in immanent experience.

My own take is that once you try to encode these experiences into language/propositions, you have already fucked up if you suppose that these formulations are perfect (i.e. divine scripture).

Which is why i like the idea of teaching the value of the experience, and methods for getting there (meditation, hashish + spinning furiously), rather than trying to say "this is the truth".

The latter tries to force down crystallized dogmas that have been inspired by these experiences, while the former is what I consider to be meaningful spirituality.

Now many have found meaningful spirtuality through this dogmatic method, but it's usually the case where they have to find some loophole or weakness in their theology that unchains them to an extent. I suspect Tom Harpur is one example.

http://www.tomharpur.com/

[Massive Quasars]

You may have lost me.

How do you value these spiritual experiences? As containing hidden truths? Or as experiences that one enjoys while realizing they are likely deceptions of the mind? I'm not sure what you mean.

[[xeno]Julios]

well just take any spiritual or religious experience that people have purported to have - many talk about a sense of overwhelming peace, and connectedness with the universe, the realization that all is one, that the self is an illusion, etc. Perhaps more sophisticated cognitions can transpire.

It brings happiness, that's for sure.

[mjrpes]

My own take is that once you try to encode these experiences into language/propositions, you have already fucked up if you suppose that these formulations are perfect (i.e. divine scripture).

Interesting how you bring that up. One book I have here on my shelf is called The Sound of the One Hand. It's about Zen Buddhism. Here a choice quote from a Zen master, which gives insight into their take on the value of the written word and encoding these experiences into language/propositions: "All the scriptures are only paper good for wiping off shit."

[Massive Quasars]

well just take any spiritual or religious experience that people have purported to have - many talk about a sense of overwhelming peace, and connectedness with the universe, the realization that all is one, that the self is an illusion, etc. Perhaps more sophisticated cognitions can transpire.

It brings happiness, that's for sure.

Sure, if I can manage to attain that feeling without self-deception (or brain damage) I wouldn't mind. Back to what I referred to in the other thread, you may be able to induce a similar sensation by trancranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) through a certain pattern of stimulation on the occipatal lobe. Although I hear TMS exposure may not be safe over the long term.

Meditation however, seems to be beneficial, from what little scientific data there is about it. Peel away the religious associations and meditation could be something to consider.