Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Bar' started by Machinated, Jun 22, 2010.
lulz. Nice and vacuous, with a dash of nebulosity.
You realize that religious texts are written by people, right? People with opinions, ego's, agendas and goals? (Rather than people who have had powerful egodeath experiences that realize they are essentially amorphous blobs that can be whatever they want or need to be..)
I keep saying this. God as a metaphor or symbol or manifestation of the unity of all things is all well and good. God as a literal concept of a man in the sky that judges everyone is fucking ridiculous.
This is why I tend to not talk about "God" to most people because the majority already think I'm absolutely insane (despite the fact that what I talk about isn't very far removed from what someone like Buddha would've talked about, not that I think I am on the same level he was. I am no-where near it.)
Most people will not understand the usage of the word "God" as metanarrative and instead think you are referring to the Judeo-Christian "God" and thus think you're a headcase. Thus why I refrain from using the word around 99% of people.
I'm not wanting to participate in this argument due to the fact that I believe it is nearly impossible to give an opinion on a topic such as this that clearly displays the author's REAL feeling and perceptions over teh interwebz, BUT according to Christian teaching and the Bible itself, Jesus DID spend time in Hell during the 3 days between his death and his resurrection. Just wanted to point that out...
- I thought we weren't supposed to reply to previous posts? I know I'm a hypocrite for doing so in my own previous post, but still...
everyone on this thread is speaking in circles... the entire history of religion vs science is a cyclical conversation.
people who are atheist ...don't need proof because they believe it is a fact that there is no god.
people who believe in god don't need proof either, they just believe.
whether the definition or the use of one term in this conversation is the basis of your confusion or not. it doesn't matter what you or i say. it's two very conflicting ideas that will always conflict.
i didn't say it is faith, i said it is similar.
you tend to split hairs in most of your comments but this main idea is: nothing is black and white... everything is incredibly gray (or grey).
all ridiculous confusion aside; progress is the result of "above thinking" and anything else is egotistic.
Unfortunately, this doesn't allow us to build planes and computers, etc. Unless planes are computers... brb.
This is my main gripe, because you don't have to believe it to be a fact that there is no god to not make assumptions that there are a higher power. That's why I took issue with your statement about it being as "maniacal" as making decisions based off religion or faith, since it's a base state to begin with and requires no proof or assumptions or beliefs in either directions - it just is.
ah i see what you mean.
this conversation is an uphill battle for me because i am biased. i do however try my best not to discredit the ideas of others. if people feel strong enough about something ...it may as well be the truth to them but to many others it's perceived as foolish because of their similar convictions. religion is personal to me so it's difficult for me to tell other people what is right and what is wrong. god or no god (for the sake of discussion) people are screwed-up... and anyway you slice it (imo) none of us know what the hell we are talking about.
Jesus H. Christ. Why do hippies always say this. "God is love, man. Love is everything... n' stuff." It's a nice thought I suppose but is of no practical use at all.
What is the point of saying "Ok, god's not real, but he's a metaphor for everything." We already have terms for ideas like that. Pantheism, basically being what you just described. Adding a layer of superficial nonsense doesn't really do anything.
Sorry, but new age hippies bother me. They claim to be "connected" to the universe at some level unbelievers can't fathom. It's silly and kind of megalomaniacal. "I have some knowledge of the universe unknown to you because you are closed minded, or ask for something like... evidence." All the non-theistic spirituality stuff, as far as I can tell, is nothing more but vague nebulous statements in which the believer appends and gives his own meaning to, and is continually built upon with more nebulous nonspecific claims. It's easy to show these faults in thinking, but one must be careful as hippies are easily offended, and once you get them irritated nothing you say will penetrate their patchouli odor-shields. They become impervious to facts, if they weren't already. At a drum circle last week I asked some friends what the purpose and source of chakras are, and they gave contrasting answers shocked as to what the other had said.
To be honest, most people are credulous as fuck. I do little experiments at work and will make up a bunch of scientific sounding, conspiracy-oriented, or supernatural stories and tell them to my friends and co-workers on occasion along with my usual nerdery and science-oriented ramblings. They usually believe them without asking for any sort of proof, just a 10 second youtube video of blinking lights or some non sequitur answer will suffice most of the time. Show them some edited videos...
"You see how the lights move like that, only a UFO can move that way, it breaks the laws of physics." Just say that with authority and listen to the "ooooh's" and "aaahhh's".
Most people don't know much about physics, or video editing, or even have a basic skeptical toolset to work with, so they don't know how to go about proving it true or false to begin with. Many people also have this annoying archaic ideal that "majority rules" and that it applies to scientific facts. haha.
It drives me mad.
(lol at nobody following the no replying rule)
-Modern metalcore has no correlation to hardcore, stop calling it hardcore.
You can't describe religion and science using the same word. If you insist on calling them "ideas", science is made up of ideas based on reproducible observation and research. There is nothing of the sort occurring in religion; it is simply a belief.
Going back and reading the early pages of this thread, the first 10 or so have some really good stuff in them.
You know, before we got all serious and shit.
What if someone says "Thank god I'm an athiest!"
- The guy who decided its a good idea to start school/work at such early hours deserve to be slapped in the face, twice.
Do you really mean unpack the meaning? Or do you just mean interpret in a way that fits in to your preconceptions as to what the Bible should say?
This is why i gave up religious debates with my friends, the Bible only told them roughly what they wanted to hear, anything they didn't like was just a misunderstanding/mistranslation
Who cares about practical use when depression rates are soaring?
A technologically advanced, intellectually enlightened society where everyone's miserable and loading themselves up on anti-depressants and you're worried about practical use?
The rest of your comment is pretty much fair game. I'm not gonna disagree with you. I have zero proof for anything I say, but how many people go by what they have felt and experienced rather than what one or more of the many institutions (that includes religion AND science) have told them is the truth?
a lot of bands are stupid and go to the wrong producers/engineers/mixers/mastering engineers for their recordings.
bendeth mixes suck lately.
andrew wade mixes are also a major letdown.
as are tom denney's
Holy shit Varg Vikernes' hair is getting long...
Calling the drum track on an album with heavy sample replacement and editing a "performance" is actually fucking crazy.