One for you Mozzaok and all other Athiests.

The Atheist Bus Campaign will soon run on buses across the UK capital with the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."(02:01)

http://media.theage.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43148

Enjoy :-)

http://picture-book.com/files/userimages/35u/f-bus.jpg

Where do suppose the bus is going sprint?   :-/

I'm sure it will offend plenty of people.

I think "Don't worry be happy" has a better ring to it.

"There's probably no God....."


Is that the best the atheists have got???

Woeful.

8-)




Psalms 2:4
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.





++++++++


I suppose the atheists can not be too dogmatic, in their campaign statement-s,
....otherwise  those  Christians would likely blow up a bus, if the atheists offended them too much!!!


Oooops!
....wrong image.     :o
http://www.jihadwatch.org/London_Bus_2.jpg


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41725000/jpg/_41725714_bus_getty.jpg

It is a curiously soft message. They might as well say maybe God does exist.

Whatever happened to 'religion is the root of all evil', or 'those children must be liberated from their parents', or 'Dawkins has proved that God doesn't exist'. I've seen atheists say all these things, apparently with a straight face. I think even here on this forum.

Sprint I was setting you up for a line...you were supposed to reply "the bus is going straight to hell".

FD, Dawkins talked about a scale of 1 - 7 regarding belief in an interventionist God, where 1 = total belief and 7 = total non-belief.
He stated that although he was an atheist, he gave himself a 6. This is because he realises that he cannot be totally sure of anything, but it is in the category of believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. This is the most common response for atheists.

However, most religious people scored themselves at a 1, because they are totally and absolutely sure about the existence of an interventionist God.

The point being, the atheists reply to the question more realistically.

amadd - sorry about missing that.

my thoughts are being an athiest or not has no bearing on going to hell or not.

Amadd wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 7:36pm:

... Dawkins talked about a scale of 1 - 7 regarding belief in an interventionist God, where 1 = total belief and 7 = total non-belief. He stated that although he was an atheist, he gave himself a 6. This is because he realises that he cannot be totally sure of anything, but it is in the category of believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. This is the most common response for atheists. However, most religious people scored themselves at a 1, because they are totally and absolutely sure about the existence of an interventionist God. The point being, the atheists reply to the question more realistically.

Are there any links to that survey or is it Dawkins religious believe atheism is the best of religions?

Amadd wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 7:36pm:

Sprint I was setting you up for a line...you were supposed to reply "the bus is going straight to hell". FD, Dawkins talked about a scale of 1 - 7 regarding belief in an interventionist God, where 1 = total belief and 7 = total non-belief. He stated that although he was an atheist, he gave himself a 6. This is because he realises that he cannot be totally sure of anything, but it is in the category of believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. This is the most common response for atheists. However, most religious people scored themselves at a 1, because they are totally and absolutely sure about the existence of an interventionist God. The point being, the atheists reply to the question more realistically.

Hi Amadd,

Atheists are realists.....

.....whereas, religious people are people who believe in faerie tales?

:)




LETS EXPLORE THIS A LITTLE FURTHER....

As we know, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Correct?

Therefore yes, a reason-able atheist, would give himself a 6 [on the above 1 - 7 scale].


+++++


On the other hand, it is possible to prove a positive.

Have you considered, just perhaps, some ppl have 'proved' a positive [within their own experience]?

Hence some 1's from the religious bod's?




Amadd,

In my experience, there are 4 kinds of people walking this earth...

1. There are people who believe that there is no God.
2. There are people who believe that there may be a God. But hey, they don't know.
3. There are people who believe that there is a God, and they pray to him.
4. There are people who know there is a God.


I can guess your next response.

"How can anyone know there is a God???"


May i suggest, those ppl who have been in his presence can.

And many ppl alive today, do in fact make such a claim.

That they have had a 1st hand experience of God.

Saying this [above], i know that atheists, and many others, are always going to be sceptical about such claims.

So be it.

But additionally, let me ask you this Q.

Does the experience of a[nother] person become [in fact] invalid, because YOU have not shared such an experience?

What is YOUR answer to that question?

[Answer recorded]




NOW, PROCEED BELOW....

++++++++++

Now Amadd,

To demonstrate a point of logic, imagine that it were possible for you to take a one way trip, back in time 500 years, to lets say 1500's England.

And you begin to tell the natives of that time, about things from the distant future.

And you tell them [for instance] that it is possible for....

1/ A man-made metal 'bird' of gigantic dimensions [a 747 Jumbo], weighing 300 tons, to fly through the air.
2/ And that it is possible to build a machine which can send images, and messages [by radio waves], many miles away, through the ether, to other people.

Besides the fact that after you tell the natives of those parts these things, you may very well be the very next candidate to be taken to the town common, to be burned at the stake as a witch.....

Wouldn't it be almost impossible for you to prove to those ppl, that you have been a witness of these things, of which you spoke of?

Wouldn't your claims that you had seen those wondrous things, be regarded as unprovable non-sense?




Amadd,

Do you think that the minds, of some ppl who live today, are any less 'closed', than the minds of ppl who lived 500 years ago?

People like Dawkins believe in their own experience.

And that is a reasonable position.

And what ppl like Dawkins are really saying [to those who have a  different  experience] is,
....."Please don't challenge my reality, with your different experience. Because i can not handle my reality and my truth being wrong!"



Reality and truth?

Sadly, reality is reality.

And truth is truth.

And we all come here, to choose our own reality, and to choose our own TRUTH.
.....in much the same way, as the ppl who lived 500 years ago were compelled to choose their reality and their truth.

Let me clarify those last words.

Do i believe in an absolute reality, and an absolute TRUTH?

Yes.

Or should i say, ABSOLUTELY!

;D

But, i do not believe that we humans, being finite creatures, can understand such absolutes, except in a limited [by our own finite-ness] way.


Is my God a 'reality'?

For me, yes.



p.s.
I'm a 1 [on the above 1 - 7 scale].


++++

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yadda wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:30am:

As we know, it is impossible to prove a negative. Correct?

It's actually impossible to prove anything, one can only disprove.


Yadda wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:30am:

On the other hand, it is possible to prove a positive. Have you considered, just perhaps, some ppl have 'proved' a positive [within their own experience]? Hence some 1's from the religious bod's?

It is only possible to disprove things, not prove them.  In addition in order for something to be disproved, it needs to be falsifiable


Yadda wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:30am:

Does the experience of a[nother] person become [in fact] invalid, because YOU have not shared such an experience?

It does not become invalid, it already is invalid.  Without an external method of verification it holds little weight.  The brain is more than capable of making one believe they have had an encounter with a god.



Yadda wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:30am:

Wouldn't it be almost impossible for you to prove to those ppl, that you have been a witness of these things, of which you spoke of? Wouldn't your claims that you had seen those wondrous things, be regarded as unprovable non-sense?

Without evidence, certainly, and probably even with evidence.  The social situation would make it very difficult to convince others.





Yadda wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:30am:

Do you think that the minds, of some ppl who live today, are any less 'closed', than the minds of ppl who lived 500 years ago? People like Dawkins believe in their own experience. And that is a reasonable position.

It is only reasonable if it can be tested.  Currently we have no way test god's existence.

It's actually impossible to prove anything, one can only disprove.

That is not true. It depends entirely on the methodology/field of study.

It does not become invalid, it already is invalid.  Without an external method of verification it holds little weight.

Circular reasoning.

Quote:

4. There are people who know there is a God. I can guess your next response. "How can anyone know there is a God???"

We don't say that YOU don't BELIEVE, we just say, "are you out of your frickin' mind???"

I guess we call it a delusion, for that reason.

I have had a few warm fuzzy feelings, in my life, some very moving, very intense spiritual experiences, but I have never once felt the need to rationalise them away with an imaginary, invisible sky daddy.

Seriously though, if you think someone is talking back, get help.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

It's actually impossible to prove anything, one can only disprove. That is not true. It depends entirely on the methodology/field of study.

You cannot prove anything in science which requires observation.


freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

It does not become invalid, it already is invalid.  Without an external method of verification it holds little weight. Circular reasoning.

Just how is that circular reasoning.  Anecdotal evidence has to be verified before it become valid.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 8:26pm:

One for you Mozzaok and all other Athiests. The Atheist Bus Campaign will soon run on buses across the UK capital with the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."(02:01) http://media.theage.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43148 Enjoy :-)

What a total waste of money.  ;D

Tallowood and FD take note - This is an example of an Atheist religion proselytising (and wasting money). I totally distance myself from such things.

You cannot prove anything in science which requires observation.

And this is relevant because?

Just how is that circular reasoning.

Why does it hold little weight without an external method of verificiation?

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 2:02pm:

You cannot prove anything in science which requires observation. And this is relevant because?

The existence of a god cannot be proved with science (or disproved for that matter). In fact science has exactly nothing to say about the supernatural because as far as science is concerned it does not exist.


freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:

Just how is that circular reasoning. Why does it hold little weight without an external method of verification?

Primarily due to the fact that internal verification is fundamentally open to far more bias and influence.

The existence of a god cannot be proved with science (or disproved for that matter).

Duh. Nor can the existence of Hitler.

In fact science has exactly nothing to say about the supernatural because

So what you're saying is that it is totally irrelevant?

as far as science is concerned it does not exist.

This is not exactly true. It is beyond the scope of the scientific method, but that certainly does not mean it does not exist.

Primarily due to the fact that internal verification is fundamentally open to far more bias and influence.

Every paradigm you use is based on internal verification, including science and it's paradigms.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:00pm:

The existence of a god cannot be proved with science (or disproved for that matter). Duh. Nor can the existence of Hitler.

While it cannot be proved, there is a vast amount of evidence in support of the existence of Hitler.


freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:00pm:

In fact science has exactly nothing to say about the supernatural because So what you're saying is that it is totally irrelevant? as far as science is concerned it does not exist. This is not exactly true. It is beyond the scope of the scientific method, but that certainly does not mean it does not exist.

Things beyond the scope of the scope of the scientific method are irrelevant from a scientific point of view since they do not influence the physical world.



freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:00pm:

Primarily due to the fact that internal verification is fundamentally open to far more bias and influence. Every paradigm you use is based on internal verification, including science and it's paradigms.

Incorporates, not based on.  There is a layer of internal verification because we have limited ways to perceive the world.  That does not mean every perception should pass unchallenged as equally reliable.

Things beyond the scope of the scope of the scientific method are irrelevant from a scientific point of view

Duh. And this is relevant because?

since they do not influence the physical world.

Wrong. Does Hitler fit into the physical world?

Incorporates, not based on.  There is a layer of internal verification because we have limited ways to perceive the world.

The olny objective measure of a paradigm other than internal consistency is the number of people who believe it.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

Things beyond the scope of the scope of the scientific method are irrelevant from a scientific point of view Duh. And this is relevant because? since they do not influence the physical world. Wrong. Does Hitler fit into the physical world?

Hitler was not supernatural.


freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

Incorporates, not based on.  There is a layer of internal verification because we have limited ways to perceive the world. The olny objective measure of a paradigm other than internal consistency is the number of people who believe it.

Internal consistency needs to be measured and subjected to scrutiny.   Just because a person believes something does not make it so.  This does not change no matter how many people believe it, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Kytro wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:09pm:

While it cannot be proved, there is a vast amount of evidence in support of the existence of Hitler.

You're kidding, right? I thought he commited suicide years ago.

muso wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 3:09pm: While it cannot be proved, there is a vast amount of evidence in support of the existence of Hitler. You're kidding, right? I thought he commited suicide years ago.

;D Very funny.  I was referring to all of time.

Hitler was not supernatural.

My point still stands. Your claims about science are totally irrelevant.

Internal consistency needs to be measured and subjected to scrutiny.   Just because a person believes something does not make it so.  This does not change no matter how many people believe it, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

And your point is?

The point is that personal experience without objectively repeatable results is not reliable.

So we can't rely on historical accounts of Hiroshima unless we do it again?

The point is that personal experience without objectively repeatable results is not reliable.

What kind of wishy washy garbage is that?

When all rational argument is futile, we are left with;

Blow it out your arse you tub humping crackpots.


As far as equating the campaign as qualifying those involved as religious atheists, then I suppose their god could be "norm" from the life be in it campaign, after all, trying to encourage people to value and experience their life to their best ability must be religious....
mustn't it?
Tickheads.

G'day Yadda,

It might be a bit hard to convey my thoughts and feelings with a summary, mainly because semantics always comes into it, and also because it's a skill in which I'm not overly proficient.

Firstly, I think that it's a mistake to throw every religious person and every atheist into a specific category; there's lots of greys in between.


Quote:

Atheists are realists..... .....whereas, religious people are people who believe in faerie tales?

I think that a lot of people throw away their rational thought for something that they want or need to believe in. Unfortunately, I think that many of them swallow a whole load of bs which serves the specific agenda of their thought controllers. This can sometimes lead to believing in fairies, yes.


Quote:

As we know, it is impossible to prove a negative. Correct?

We can only assume beyond reasonable doubt where there are no given absolutes, such as in mathematics.

For instance: The madman that killed his neighbor for no apparent reason would be put in jail or an institution even though he stated that God told him to do it.


Quote:

On the other hand, it is possible to prove a positive.

For the same reasons, a provable positive is also not absolute. It's just beyond reasonable doubt.

For instance: You say that a person exists because you can see him/her standing right in front of you and so does everybody else around you.
But unbeknowns to you or everybody else, the person that you see in front of you is actually just a holographic figure that has been conjured up using new technology.


Quote:

Does the experience of a[nother] person become [in fact] invalid, because YOU have not shared such an experience?

Of course not, I'm very interested in people's experiences.

I've had inexplicable experiences in their bucket loads. Some minor, and some very profound.

In some ways I consider that I'd be lessening the personal value of those experiences by simply saying "Oh that must God speaking to me, so I must now believe everything that a religion tells me about it".

I'm much more interested in looking at quantum physics for possible future explanations.


Quote:

And you begin to tell the natives of that time, about things from the distant future. And you tell them [for instance] that it is possible for.... 1/ A man-made metal 'bird' of gigantic dimensions [a 747 Jumbo], weighing 300 tons, to fly through the air. 2/ And that it is possible to build a machine which can send images, and messages [by radio waves], many miles away, through the ether, to other people.

I believe that almost anything imaginable can be possible.

Now put me back in time 2000 years with one of those giant metal "God birds" and let me show them "actual" images of God and let them hear the voice of God, and let me tell you, nobody would know anything about Christianity or Islam because the world would be Amaddian....Hoo hoo hah ha!i

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 7:57pm:

I believe that almost anything imaginable can be possible. Now put me back in time 2000 years with one of those giant metal "God birds" and let me show them "actual" images of God and let them hear the voice of God, and let me tell you, nobody would know anything about Christianity or Islam because the world would be Amaddian....Hoo hoo hah ha!

Have you heard about cargo cult? That's where atheist religion is at it's best.
No need to go back 2k years.

Cargo cult? No, I haven't heard of it.
I'm not a member of "team atheism".

Oic...I just looked it up. People can be quite gullible can't they?

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:57pm:

Cargo cult? No, I haven't heard of it. I'm not a member of "team atheism". Oic...I just looked it up. People can be quite gullible can't they?

I think they just needed an excuse for a rampant sex orgy.

tallowood wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:

Amadd wrote on Oct 28th, 2008 at 7:57pm: I believe that almost anything imaginable can be possible. Now put me back in time 2000 years with one of those giant metal "God birds" and let me show them "actual" images of God and let them hear the voice of God, and let me tell you, nobody would know anything about Christianity or Islam because the world would be Amaddian....Hoo hoo hah ha! Have you heard about cargo cult? That's where atheist religion is at it's best. No need to go back 2k years.

Most Cargo cults are not atheist. The Prince Phillip and John Frum cults worship human beings as gods, similar to Christianity. Those are theist cults.

By the way, I have never disputed that some atheists follow a religion. Not all religions involve a god or gods. I use the broad definition of atheist as 'one who lacks a belief in gods'.

As you have no doubt gathered, that particular definition is not fully compatible with the one that involves denial of the existence of God.

As Freediver pointed out, you need to know about the concept of gods in order to deny them. Such a person would be agnostic according to FD. To me, anyone who doesn't believe in gods is atheist.

I tried to ask this question before, but it was ignored:

Is any theist here prepared to say that they deny the existence of Ganesh?

Amadd wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 7:57pm:

G'day Yadda, It might be a bit hard to convey my thoughts and feelings with a summary, mainly because semantics always comes into it, and also because it's a skill in which I'm not overly proficient.

Quote:

I believe that almost anything imaginable can be possible. Now put me back in time 2000 years with one of those giant metal "God birds" and let me show them "actual" images of God and let them hear the voice of God, and let me tell you, nobody would know anything about Christianity or Islam because the world would be Amaddian....Hoo hoo hah ha!

Amadd,

Thank you for your reasoned reply.

And er,  .....good luck with that time machine!

:)

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 4:36pm:

So we can't rely on historical accounts of Hiroshima unless we do it again?

You cannot rely on personal accounts in isolation as an authoritative source of information

You can rely on whatever you want to rely on.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

You can rely on whatever you want to rely on.

You can believe you could fly and jump of a cliff too, that does not make it a good idea or true.

If you set the standard that high, there is nothing you can rely on. You might as well say we can't really know anything for sure.

We rely on it enough to send people to the electric chair based on personal accounts alone. Or in countries like Australia with no death penalty, to prison for life.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 4:13pm:

I We rely on it enough to send people to the electric chair based on personal accounts alone. Or in countries like Australia with no death penalty, to prison for life.

Something I disagree with.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt is rarely upheld.

What is the alternative? It's like complaining about democracy - it's the best form of government, except for all the others. Our justice system would be hamstrung if we couldn't rely on testimony.

What you will accept as valid evidence will always depend on the question you are trying to answer. There is no 'gold standard'. There's just a bunch of people trying to figure out what the truth really is.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

What you will accept as valid evidence will always depend on the question you are trying to answer. There is no 'gold standard'. There's just a bunch of people trying to figure out what the truth really is.

Of course.  When it comes to somebody's freedom though, there really should be proof.

Quote:

Of course.  When it comes to somebody's freedom though, there really should be proof.

And the more that we are given open and honest information, the closer we can bring a consensus to absolute truth.

for the atheists..

http://www.explosm.net/comics/1242/

:P

Aww... that poor little tike was obviously brainwashed into thinking that all he needed was faith.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 1:47pm:

Quote: 4. There are people who know there is a God. I can guess your next response. "How can anyone know there is a God???" We don't say that YOU don't BELIEVE, we just say, "are you out of your frickin' mind???" I guess we call it a delusion, for that reason. I have had a few warm fuzzy feelings, in my life, some very moving, very intense spiritual experiences, but I have never once felt the need to rationalise them away with an imaginary, invisible sky daddy. Seriously though, if you think someone is talking back, get help.

LOL


Mozzaok,

I thank you for your concern.

But i do not hear voices in my head.




But hey Mozzaok,

I admit it, yes, i am a little strange.

And in confirmation of the 'strange' part, i believe that,

Angels are real.
Demons are real.
God is real [yes, my 'imaginary friend', the one from the bible].
Satan is real.

I believe that all of these entities are spirit.

I believe that [atm!] demons are largely constrained [and for the most part, are they *unable* to harm us].

I believe that all mankind are [also] spirits who are [somehow] constrained within these physical [earthen] bodies [until we die].

I believe that this physical 'reality', is a form of prison for us.
....or perhaps more accurately, compulsory 'school time'.

I also believe that this physical world is a 'construct' [a creation, a 'reality'] made by God.



Mozzaok,

In saying such things, i am not a 'Robinson Crusoe',
....i.e. I know i am not alone in these beliefs.

EXAMPLE....

Check out the post by the person called 'Lucy', here,
.....and i ask you, doesn't Lucy seem like a very sincere [convinced] person?

Hmmm, i wonder why?

8-)

"......My son has schizophrenia and believes that the goodness of Christianity has saved him. Since reading the bible he no longer sees demons- if the demons ever reappear he reads the bible again and prays and the angels save him. How can I argue with that? better to be saved by an angel than tormented by a demon. That is how he lives with it. I should mention that prior to his illness he was not religious."
http://www2b.abc.net.au/enoughrope/forum2/archives/archive8/newposts/1/topic1934.shtm

I say, You are right on the mark Lucy!

Demons are real.

God [my 'imaginary friend', and our spirit father], is real.

see also.....
ARE THERE SPIRITS IN YOUR HEART?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225068179/0#0



Mozzaok,

I would suggest that most ppl aspire, to be regarded as 'normal'.

But i could argue that what most ppl regard as 'normal' [today], is a form of insanity.

Consider,

Look at where the choices of all of the 'normal' ppl have brought us [in this world] to, today.
....[greed, poverty, lying, cheating, wars]

Look all over the world, at the type of leaders 'normal' ppl have [chosen] elected to power, in recent years.

It is wonderful, isn't it!
....i.e. being normal.
/sarc off



Mozzaok,

You may be familiar with this [once] common English expression.....

"He / She has been touched by God."

It is sometimes used to describe someone, of your acquaintance, who is a little 'strange', or unusual,
.....i.e. someone who is '...off with the faeries.'



Mozzaok,

Yadda = = strange.

I will tell you of my joy, my joy, my joy.

In all seriousness i say, i am  '...off with the faeries.'

God has touched me.

8-)


On a different tack, i also experience waking OBE's occasionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience

Yadda = = strange.


p.s.

Just to be clear, I'm not on any medication, and i do not take recreational drugs.
.....[my advice, do not take recreational drugs, because these will 'open' you to demons! ....i am not kidding.].







'I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVETH'

The Bible [especially the OT] is a book full of stories.

Within many [almost all?] of these OT stories, there are HIDDEN-IN-PLAIN-SIGHT [spiritual] parables.

Dictionary...
parable = = a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.

Why has God used parables to teach us?


Matthew 13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.


1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
....21  For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Job 19:25
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26  And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:



"....seek, and ye shall find."

Good for you Yadda.

I have no problem with people believing in something that works for them.
I do have a problem with the overriding presumptuousness that we see from too many religious people, that the answers they accept, need to be imposed onto others, especially when this includes dictating what is acceptable behaviour.

and I'm not sure that an athiest thread should be flooded by thoughts of or quotes from any specific belief.


This ones for the Athiests.

I am happy for people to challenge me with scripture if they like, a lot of scripture has terrific sentiment which I would not argue with.
I agree that for many, they find their personal morality from scriptures, I just disagree that it is the best, or only source of inspirational teachings.

I could argue against a lot more, but it would be a little like me trying to impose my beliefs onto others if I went too far down that track, plus I don't want to spoil something that others like, if it isn't hurting me.

Yadda wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:10am:

I thank you for your concern. But i do not hear voices in my head.

Yadda,

I wouldn't judge you even if you did. I know for a fact that some Christians do hear voices and even carry out articulated two way conversations with Jesus. Some atheists would regard that as insanity. I do not. It just means that they have a lot of faith. Usually such people are extremely talented individuals, and there is no question of any mental condition.

The example I gave once before was J K Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books. In an interview once, she explained how she'd write a passage, and she'd hear a voice in her head (for example Hermione) saying - "No! you'll have to redo that passage - I wouldn't say that. I'd say this instead...."

The mind is very powerful. I have played theatrical roles and I know how important it is to get into character. Sometimes the character can stick for a few hours afterwards (or days with Les Miserables). I still have vestiges of some of the characters through the years.

However, the cognitive psychology behind the human mind is not incompatible with your religious beliefs, so relax. I'm not trying to explain it all away with psychology.

Of course.  When it comes to somebody's freedom though, there really should be proof.

Which brings us back to my other question, what is your alternative?

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 11:30am:

Of course.  When it comes to somebody's freedom though, there really should be proof. Which brings us back to my other question, what is your alternative?

At the moment, there really isn't much of an alternative.  

* I dislike juries because people are often easily manipulated.   However the alternative would be a judge, and they are all to often heavily biased.

* I also dislike the adversarial judicial system where how argue can be more important than what you argue.

The best solution, in my opinion would be to remove as much emotional content as possible form determining guilt.  The emotional impact may be considered during sentencing.

First and foremost, technology to authenticate truth should be developed.  Circumstantial evidence should be subject to more scrutiny.

On balance the entire justice system needs review.

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 9:28am:

I still have vestiges of some of the characters through the years.

OK. As long as you're still not wearing the costumes and the make-up.  :D

Kytro wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 11:56am:

On balance the entire justice system needs review.

Not in Queensland mate. We have the best judiciary money can buy  ;)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 12:13pm:

muso wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 9:28am: I still have vestiges of some of the characters through the years. OK. As long as you're still not wearing the costumes and the make-up.  :D

When I'm with friends I sometimes come out with lines from shows I was in 9 years ago that seem appropriate. The lines just trip out of my mouth when I'm not paying attention. Sad isn't it?

muso wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 3:00pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 12:13pm: muso wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 9:28am: I still have vestiges of some of the characters through the years. OK. As long as you're still not wearing the costumes and the make-up.  :D When I'm with friends I sometimes come out with lines from shows I was in 9 years ago that seem appropriate. The lines just trip out of my mouth when I'm not paying attention. Sad isn't it?

It sounds OK, I spose. As long as its nothing from The Sound of Music or The Wizard of Oz.

Quote:

I know for a fact that some Christians do hear voices and even carry out articulated two way conversations with Jesus. Some atheists would regard that as insanity. I do not. It just means that they have a lot of faith. Usually such people are extremely talented individuals, and there is no question of any mental condition.

I don't think Jk Rowling was ascribing hermione's voice as other than, just her mind playing along with her story.

Now if you are telling me that people that hear a voice in their head, and identify it as the supreme being, who created the whole shooting match, and is just popping in to chew the fat with them, if you're saying that ain't crazy, then I don't know what is.

It is one thing to be aware of the power of the mind, and your inner voice, and something totally different to a guy who thinks he has Napoleon in his head, telling him to invade russia.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:30pm:

Now if you are telling me that people that hear a voice in their head, and identify it as the supreme being, who created the whole shooting match, and is just popping in to chew the fat with them, if you're saying that ain't crazy, then I don't know what is.

How 'bout an Alzheimers sufferer waiting at a bus stop wearing nothing but a shower cap.

How about accusing religion of causing all the world's problems, then saying the government should take children away from religious people to protect the children from 'dangerous ideas'?

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:48pm:

How about accusing religion of causing all the world's problems, then saying the government should take children away from religious people to protect the children from 'dangerous ideas'?

That's masochism. Would all atheists want to get rid of their ankle biters?

mozzaok wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:30pm:

I don't think Jk Rowling was ascribing hermione's voice as other than, just her mind playing along with her story.

Of course she wasn't. The word I disagree with is in bold. The human mind is an amazing thing. Religion gives some people the chance to harness that potential. Why deny them that chance? Some people brag about their religion. I brag about my motivational system too. What's the difference?

As far as the creator of the universe coming in for a chat, well I guess if a cheap laptop can be multitasking, why not the creator of the universe?

The point is that there is plenty of room for a God or even gods in cosmology, and while I don't believe in any myself, a lot of people much smarter than me don't seem to have a problem with the idea.

To state that you have an exclusive angle on how the universe works is somewhat arrogant - in fact just as arrogant as that of a fundamentalist  "One True Church" Christian .  


Quote:

Now if you are telling me that people that hear a voice in their head, and identify it as the supreme being, who created the whole shooting match, and is just popping in to chew the fat with them, if you're saying that ain't crazy, then I don't know what is.

Crazy is seeing things in a way that other people don't necessarily agree with. It's about seeing things that are totally illogical if we apply the principles of 'common sense'.

Common sense gives us things such as sitting on the paddock fence watching the cows - a nice ordered little corner of the world that obeys causation, the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian physics.

Crazy gives us things like charmed mesons, quantum entanglement, subatomic particle behaviour that depends on the observer, tachyons and dark matter. Religion can be totally crazy.

You think religious people are crazy? How many mathematicians have you met? Now they are totally stir crazy. The smarter they are, the less common sense they have. There must be a message in there somewhere.

Sometimes crazy is good. Let's not knock it.

Semantics muso, it is the lack of awareness.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 8:58am:

Semantics muso, it is the lack of awareness.

Exactly.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

- John Godfrey Saxe

---

Well actually the third man won the argument.
On the way home he announced that the elephant was talking to him, his friends said they heard nothing, and he replied that this was because they had got it wrong, and therefore not chosen for head chats, so an elephant is indeed like a snake, and those who accept that may be chosen by the elephant, to have head chats with him.

Quite simple, perhaps next time have a head chat with the snake elephant to get it's advice. :D

The point is that everybody sees life differently.  Some of us see no trace of an elephant. It's all about awareness as you said.

A Christian would cite Romans 12:3

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

What do you think that verse means?

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 9:01pm:

The point is that everybody sees life differently.  Some of us see no trace of an elephant. It's all about awareness as you said. A Christian would cite Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Quote: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought , but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. What do you think that verse means?

Well the first bit is good.


Quote:

Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought

And it is easy for some to understand, and impossible for others, I would say,
"Just hope that you are smart enough to realise that you aren't that smart"

As for the rest??
Do you really need to ask?

Imagine you are at a trendy artist cafe, and some semi-literate 19 year old who thinks he is smart, because he has read some books that he doesn't really get, starts reciting some of his prose.

I respect it, like I respect the boy, and I value it as I value what he says, and if by pure chance something of beauty or interest is revealed, well I consider that a bonus, and not because of the intrinsic worth of the source.

Church think tank donates to atheist bus campaign


Quote:

"We thought it was a great opportunity for people to think about faith and God, so we decided to support it," says Paul Woolley, the director of Theos. "It would be hard to come up with a message more self-centred message than this. Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity." So keen was he on the project, which is backed by Professor Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist, that Theos has donated £50.

:D :D :D

Mozz,

You're sticking on the word 'God'. Substitute "nature and life experience" and you'll find it's a very apt and wise saying. The point is that it applies to Christians as much as it applies to anybody else. You should quote it to them when they get on their high horse quoting scripture that they don't really understand.

There are similar lessons in Buddhism when it comes to Karma. Karma is just an extension of the principles of 'cause and effect' but everybody gets Karma wrong. Westerners think of it in terms of life currency, which is totally laughable and predictable.

It comes down to knowing ones own limitations. We all think we're standing on mountain peaks and have a unique perspective on life sometimes, but we all need to be brought down to the basics from time to time.  We were all hatched from the union of an ovum and a sperm, and we might think we have all the answers. In reality, we don't even have a tiny fraction of the questions.  

tallowood wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 10:02am:

Church think tank donates to atheist bus campaign Quote: "We thought it was a great opportunity for people to think about faith and God, so we decided to support it," says Paul Woolley, the director of Theos. "It would be hard to come up with a message more self-centred message than this. Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity." So keen was he on the project, which is backed by Professor Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist, that Theos has donated £50.

LOL. I've always thought that militant atheists and Christians should work together in an ecumenical sense.

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 10:14am:

Mozz, You're sticking on the word 'God'. Substitute "nature and life experience" and you'll find it's a very apt and wise saying. The point is that it applies to Christians as much as it applies to anybody else. You should quote it to them when they get on their high horse quoting scripture that they don't really understand. There are similar lessons in Buddhism when it comes to Karma. Karma is just an extension of the principles of 'cause and effect' but everybody gets Karma wrong. Westerners think of it in terms of life currency, which is totally laughable and predictable.

I do not mean to pick on you - you are not allone to speak like this - but why should ANYONE pay any attention to a person who does not even have a tiny fraction of the question, let alone a tentavie gesture towards the way. Why listen to any one person when apparently everyone is saying the same thing?

Karma is 'just' the extension of cause and effect? God is 'just' nature and life experience'? Why should you have, say, rights and dignity and responsibility if you are 'just' something hatched from one glob of cells that collided with another glob of cells? if that is 'just' that what you are, why bother speaking? And why wouldd anyone bother to hear you when theey aare 'just' like you?


Quote:

It comes down to knowing ones own limitations. We all think we're standing on mountain peaks and have a unique perspective on life sometimes, but we all need to be brought down to the basics from time to time.  We were all hatched from the union of an ovum and a sperm, and we might think we have all the answers. In reality, we don't even have a tiny fraction of the questions.

How is this not just chatter and clucking?

You are too hasty to set limitations on yourself. You need to take more responsiblity and be less hasty with relinguishing it in the name of , well, it's 'just' this or that.

Reductionism of " it's just this and that' becomes absurd quicker than you realise.

Religion it seems is not too different to an erect penis, capable of making the wisest man, act like a fool.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 9:10pm:

Religion it seems is not too different to an erect penis, capable of making the wisest man, act like a fool.

R. Dawkins is a good example of that.

tallowood wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 9:33pm:

mozzaok wrote on Nov 1st, 2008 at 9:10pm: Religion it seems is not too different to an erect penis, capable of making the wisest man, act like a fool. R. Dawkins is a good example of that.

Utter not, your foul mockery of the great Lord Dawkins
And beware the man before you.
For it is he, the Bishop of Mozz,
Who will smite ye down (or crusheth your toe at least)
With his mighty zimmer frame.

Can't I have one of them fancy red scooter thingies instead? lol.

I aint that old helian, and I probably never will be, mind you, my odds of making 30 were mighty slim, so you never know.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 9:10pm:

Religion it seems is not too different to an erect penis, capable of making the wisest man, act like a fool.

This does not go as long and deep as perhaps intended but may well be thicker.

I love to mock religious pretensions as much as the next guy but mocking religion as if they were all the same all thee time and as if they had nothing to say, any of them, ever, is a bit too lazy a generalisation. No applause for a short (ahem) quip is worth it, really.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 10:22pm:

my odds of making 30 were mighty slim, so you never know.

But you learned your lesson I spose. Be sure to know where the husband is when rooting the neighbour's wife.

Nothing so crass, but lot's more fun.
Think more two and a half men.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Nothing so crass, but lot's more fun. Think more two and a half men.

Hopefully you mean the show and not a stage act called 'Brought to you by the letter H' starring you, your mate and a dwarf. Hopefully you're not that Mozz.

Soren wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 8:57pm:

I do not mean to pick on you - you are not allone to speak like this - but why should ANYONE pay any attention to a person who does not even have a tiny fraction of the question, let alone a tentavie gesture towards the way. Why listen to any one person when apparently everyone is saying the same thing?

Then don't listen. I have dared to put my own perspective in words. By putting it in words, I do exactly what you say - It's the general principle of Reductio ad Absurdum. To verbalise concepts of our purpose in the universe is immediately invoking a false premise, and as soon as we invoke a false premise, all propositions become possible.  When we think that have successfully defined something in words, it has already slipped out of our reach. It has crawled away while we were defining it and it's already somewhere totally different, laughing at our efforts to define it.  

All I'm saying is that we all have a tiny fraction of the questions, regardless of the fact that some people claim to have a conduit to all the answers through their personal window on life.

Maybe we'll get closer to the truth if we all accept that when it comes to life, we all have useful and possibly unique perspectives.

I regard religions and philosophies as collected wisdom through the ages. Each one has a different perspective, or a different window on the universe.

If we are so arrogant as to think that our own unique perspective can be the only one that's right then we stand to lose as a result.

My sacred cows are knowledge and humility. What are yours?

mozzaok wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 10:22pm:

Can't I have one of them fancy red scooter thingies instead? lol. I aint that old helian, and I probably never will be, mind you, my odds of making 30 were mighty slim, so you never know.

I think you've left the atheist bus and taken your little red scooter somewhere else  ;D  I don't understand the reference to 2.5 men.

For what it's worth, I still want to buy a dirt bike despite my wife's warnings. Growing old is over-rated. I would never want to do that.   ;D

Growing old is THE worst thing that can happen to you.
Except for the alternative.

And I really am not that old, it is just a bit of a joke, if we compared record collections we would find little to differentiate, and then, only on taste, not era.

The 2&1/2 men thing was just that my expected demise was from hedonistic overindulgence, a la charlie, not from violent retribution from cuckolded spouses, as helian said.



Quote:

My sacred cows are knowledge and humility. What are yours?

Mine are COWS. ;D

mozzaok wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 6:17am:

Quote: My sacred cows are knowledge and humility. What are yours? Mine are COWS. ;D

From your previous comments about a biker mate, I don't even want to go there  :P

mozzaok wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 6:17am:

And I really am not that old, it is just a bit of a joke, if we compared record collections we would find little to differentiate, and then, only on taste, not era.

That's the ticket old fella, laugh in the face of Father Time... Hang onto those Al Jolson 78s...

Turn up the pacemaker... arthritis can go to blazes... let's party like its 1935

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 12:04pm:

mozzaok wrote on Nov 2nd, 2008 at 6:17am: And I really am not that old, it is just a bit of a joke, if we compared record collections we would find little to differentiate, and then, only on taste, not era. That's the ticket old fella, laugh in the face of Father Time... Hang onto those Al Jolson 78s... Turn up the pacemaker... arthritis can go to blazes... let's party like its 1935

........and here was I thinking that my Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins collections were getting jaded.

Quote:

if we compared record collections we would find little to differentiate, and then, only on taste, not era.

What's a record?

It's like one of those old CDs, but full of scratches.

Oic...

I thought he was into collecting little red buttons  :D

Amadd wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 5:19pm:

Quote: if we compared record collections we would find little to differentiate, and then, only on taste, not era. What's a record?

It's like a phonograph. Invented by Edison.

The first record I ever bought was "Please Please Me", what about you?

I bought 'The Distance to Here' by Live.

Am I old?

Well as it was released 36 years after the beatles album, I would say the probability of you being old, is very, very, slim.

I just played it on daily motion, as I could not remember it(the dolphins cry), I must have repressed my distaste for it from my memory, or perhaps it is just dementia marching on, but those guys suck, utter soft c0ck grunge wannabes. But I was lucky to have acts like the beatles and stones to be my preteen idols, not many classic bands around in the top 40 stuff in the last 25 years.

I like Live. It's like covert Christian rock. You wouldn't know it was Christian rock unless you listened very closely. Or maybe I am looking too hard?

The Dolphins Cry is a bit out of whack though, way better songs on there that never got in to the Top 40, but then again everyone knows the Top 40 is rigged. There's some good songs on that CD but. Throwing Copper is a classic album by them.

muso wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 6:00am:

Soren wrote on Nov 1st, 2008 at 8:57pm: I do not mean to pick on you - you are not allone to speak like this - but why should ANYONE pay any attention to a person who does not even have a tiny fraction of the question, let alone a tentavie gesture towards the way. Why listen to any one person when apparently everyone is saying the same thing? Then don't listen. I have dared to put my own perspective in words. By putting it in words, I do exactly what you say - It's the general principle of Reductio ad Absurdum. To verbalise concepts of our purpose in the universe is immediately invoking a false premise, and as soon as we invoke a false premise, all propositions become possible.  When we think that have successfully defined something in words, it has already slipped out of our reach. It has crawled away while we were defining it and it's already somewhere totally different, laughing at our efforts to define it.   All I'm saying is that we all have a tiny fraction of the questions, regardless of the fact that some people claim to have a conduit to all the answers through their personal window on life. Maybe we'll get closer to the truth if we all accept that when it comes to life, we all have useful and possibly unique perspectives. I regard religions and philosophies as collected wisdom through the ages. Each one has a different perspective, or a different window on the universe. If we are so arrogant as to think that our own unique perspective can be the only one that's right then we stand to lose as a result. My sacred cows are knowledge and humility. What are yours?

If from your own perspective everything is absurd, and you know that from the start, what use is that knowldge and what is the point of piously invoking 'unique perspective"?
And if communicating this insight into qbsurdity is itself absurd -if, as you say, everything you define in words has already crawled away, laughing - what's the point of uttering them?
And so then back to the knowledge - if what you say about absurdity is miscommunication, perhaps your knowledge is incorrect. So what you know of absurdity is istelf an absurdity.
Start from top. Loop on ad infinitum.


If so, you should be like Cratylus - standing on street corners silently, wagging your finger at the passers-by.

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2008 at 2:06pm:

If so, you should be like Cratylus - standing on street corners silently, wagging your finger at the passers-by.

Many windows are better than one. I prefer the insight of Kurosawa's Rashomon to that of Cratylus and Heroclitus.

Regardless of the absurdity of life, and as I said before, we'll get closer to the truth if we all accept that when it comes to life, we all have useful and possibly unique perspectives.

If we want to add meaning to life, we can only do it ourselves. We all do it, whether by following established religions or in many other ways, such as pursuing knowledge.

muso wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2008 at 4:39pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2008 at 2:06pm: If so, you should be like Cratylus - standing on street corners silently, wagging your finger at the passers-by. Many windows are better than one. I prefer the insight of Kurosawa's Rashomon to that of Cratylus and Heroclitus. Regardless of the absurdity of life, and as I said before, we'll get closer to the truth if we all accept that when it comes to life, we all have useful and possibly unique perspectives. If we want to add meaning to life, we can only do it ourselves. We all do it, whether by following established religions or in many other ways, such as pursuing knowledge.

How do you get 'closer to the truth' when the very idea of formulating it is absurd, according to your reasoning:


Quote:

To verbalise concepts of our purpose in the universe is immediately invoking a false premise, and as soon as we invoke a false premise, all propositions become possible.  When we think that have successfully defined something in words, it has already slipped out of our reach. It has crawled away while we were defining it and it's already somewhere totally different, laughing at our efforts to define it.

The same goes for all the other stuff - 'useful and unique perspective', 'adding meaning to life' whether through religion or otherwise.

Each of your formulations, by your own reckoning, are elusive, unreliable - in short, you are NOT saying what you are saying.
You are conceptually nowehere. You have disappeared in a puff of undefinable, crawling, laughing metaphoric smoke.

You can't actually live like that. You could never cross the street, or indeed, get out of bed, if the uncertainty you formulate was a guiding conviction of your life. You are giving us, instead, a massive rhetorical overreach, hoping to demonstrate sensibility. But sensibility, like the rest, have crawled away already, laughing from a distance.

That is not pursuing knowldege or anything of the sort. Relativising everything in human affairs if impossible and therefore speaking as if it were possible is careless and thoughtless.

Soren acknowledging that the truth is not as firm as commonly believed helps to keep things in perspective.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2008 at 11:43am:

Soren acknowledging that the truth is not as firm as commonly believed helps to keep things in perspective.

FD,

Too many ppl in the world today are saying,

BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK.

UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.



FD,

Perhaps the TRUTH  is  the TRUTH.

Perhaps the problem lies with our own finite, limited, human understanding, of absolutes [i.e. our limited, human understanding of reality ]?

I've never heard anyone say that.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2008 at 12:19pm:

I've never heard anyone say that.

Yes you have FD.


"ISLAM is peace."


BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK.


UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.

Soren wrote on Nov 4^th, 2008 at 11:33am:

Each of your formulations, by your own reckoning, are elusive, unreliable - in short, you are NOT saying what you are saying. You are conceptually nowehere. You have disappeared in a puff of undefinable, crawling, laughing metaphoric smoke.

The fact that we think provides refuge from the metaphorical smoke.  Everything is based on perception - in some cases implied or enhanced perception. Cogito ergo sum.

The perception itself may not be a totally solid foundation, but it's all we've got.

If we choose to ignore our perception, then we'll all end up like Cratylus.

Sometimes I feel more like Sisyphus in this forum, especially talking about environmental issues.  ;D

Sisyphus dared to change the course of nature by blocking the gates of Hades and was relegated to the pointless task of eternally rolling a rock up a hill only to have it roll down each time.

And now, please stand for the Apostle's creed

The British Humanist Association was under fire this week for accepting £35,000

Quote:

The British Humanist Association, which is running a campaign get rid of faith schools and wants to end the Church of England's position as the established religion, was given the grant by the Government's equality watchdog and is using it to stage a series of debates about the place of religion in public life. ... Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister who specialises in religious discrimination, said: "It's a bit like paying the Taliban to lecture on women's rights. "There's nothing wrong with the British Humanist Association organising seminars, but it's the fact that they're getting public money. "There is the question of whether this is what Government money should be going for, particularly in a time of recession. "If we're having a debate on religion, should we be paying one side of the argument to hold it, especially with public money?" ... The BHA is also the "official campaign partner" of the atheist bus campaign, launched earlier this year, which seeks to place on London bendy-buses a series of adverts declaring: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".