12 Mar 03
Originally posted by royalchickenQuite right... I never meant it that way. Better to say that the past is imaginary (as it exists only in mind), the present is any one moment before being "posted" to memory and future is undefined. Better?
Clearly a well thought out post. And I tend to agree with many of your points. But please stop perpetuating the silly myth that there is anything "mysterious" or "transcendental" about \/-1.
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by royalchickenThe square root thing was just a silly effort at a mathematical simile.
Much. THank you for even reading that mathophilic, ridiculous, and totally irrelevant post of mine. I'll send you a game sometime.
Didn't work too well...
Without love of math, the human race wouldn't have running water. I am "math challenged" myself, but I have immence respect for those who can manage it. Mike
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by OmnislashI'm a bit naive when it comes to this God stuff, but perhaps you can clear things up for me. I've read the Bible, and nowhere in there does it claim that God is omniscient, omnipotent, or perfectly benevolent. So if you take the Bible literally, as you said in a different post, what reason do you have for attributing these properties to God? Now it may be the case that you don't attribute these properties to God, but in my experience when Christians talk about God, they normally take God to have these properties.
Buckle up everyone, because your good friend Sean here is about to take you on another mindbending ride of....(tadah!) SELF EVALUATION and LEARNING! Yes boys and girls, it can be done! You too may read such ancient texts as the Bible and make your own intelligent discernment about it! Might some of you be curios as to what 'ol Sean has found from his bibl ...[text shortened]... Peace be with you all,
Sean
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrI'll keep this short with just a few simplistic thoughts. Obviously books are written around this kind of debate. It seems to me that on a very practical, daily living level that an essential element of faith (in whatever) is the reality of doubt. Be wary of those who demand blind obedience. Secondly, the Bible is not a book that is without error. Some Christians completely miss the point by focusing on the Bible being "inerrent" or a book of ultimate reality and truth. However, I would also say that because there are inconsistencies doesn't mean it has any less value about the nature of humans struggling to find their place and relationship with God. It is not meant to be a physics book. It is best read by people who are searching dare I say, in humility. Kirk
I'm a bit naive when it comes to this God stuff, but perhaps you can clear things up for me. I've read the Bible, and nowhere in there does it claim that God is omniscient, omnipotent, or perfectly benevolent. So if you take the Bible literally, as you said in a different post, what reason do you have for attributing these properties to God? Now it may be ...[text shortened]... my experience when Christians talk about God, they normally take God to have these properties.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Nice post Kirk. But I'm still confused about what we're all talking about when we talk about God. When people use a term like 'table' or 'chair' I at least know what they mean, but when people use the term 'God' I'm not sure what it is they are referring to. What properties is this creature supposed to possess?
I'll keep this short with just a few simplistic thoughts. Obviously books are written around this kind of debate. It seems to me that on a very practical, daily living level that an essential element of faith (in whatever) is the reality of doubt. Be wary of those who demand blind obedience. Secondly, the Bible is not a book that is without error. So ...[text shortened]... o be a physics book. It is best read by people who are searching dare I say, in humility. Kirk
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrWe are best left confused by the concept of God. And to me that is OK, at least if you're not a fundamentalist. Perhaps my friends in recovery programs, many very wounded by religions, have got it right. Simply, "the God of your understanding" or your "higher power." Emphasis on YOUR. If we get completely comfortable or familiar with God, we lose the sense of the mysterious. Lose that and you might lose your soul. Kirk
Nice post Kirk. But I'm still confused about what we're all talking about when we talk about God. When people use a term like 'table' or 'chair' I at least know what they mean, but when people use the term 'God' I'm not sure what it is they are referring to. What properties is this creature supposed to possess?
13 Mar 03
OK, a personal story about me that may better explain what I was trying to say. At a particularly low time in my life (frankly one of the worst days of my life) I was doing dishes just to do something. My daughter who was 6 at the time came over to me and said, "Daddy, you know what? I just really like myself." I turned off the water and thought about that and asked her what she meant. She said that she felt that God really liked who she had become. Now I was almost moved to tears because I was struggling with my own sense of defectiveness. But the point of this "God-event" for me was the timing. Why did she say that and why then? I can't explain it, but for that particular moment it was what I needed and it invited me to see beyond myself and my problem. For some people this story may not make sense, but it need not make sense. It only needs to invite me to inquire and search and reflect. Thanks for listening. Kirk
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by mikadoYour rejection of the pixie hypothesis is NOT an act of faith. If you were to believe in the pixie on Dyl's shoulder without being given any proof, then that would be an act of faith. Faith is the belief IN something, not the negation of a belief.
We may be disagreeing on terminology.The pixie analogy is interesting. I cannot prove whether dyl has a pixie on his shoulder - the best I can do is to reject it as inconceiveable (an act of faith) or make a working decision to proceed as if there is no pixie (in the knowledge that there is a possibility that I may be wrong).
Mick 🙂
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettHis rejection would be an act of faith, however, if no matter the evidence in favor of the pixie hypothesis he refused to entertain the hypothesis.
Your rejection of the pixie hypothesis is NOT an act of faith. If you were to believe in the pixie on Dyl's shoulder without being given any proof, then that would be an act of faith. Faith is the belief IN something, not the negation of a belief.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrHuh? I've reread this sentence several times and it doesn't seem to make any sense. Do you want to expand on that a little?
His rejection would be an act of faith, however, if no matter the evidence in favor of the pixie hypothesis he refused to entertain the hypothesis.
13 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettSorry if I was unclear. Suppose that he believes "there is no invisible pixie". Suppose that I then pull out a can of spray paint and spray the shoulder upon which the pixie allegedly sits, exposing what appears to be a pixie. If he still denies that there is a pixie, and no matter what type of evidence we present he will not budge, then I think it's fair to say he has faith in the non-existence of pixies. In short, I'm claiming that any belief can be an object of faith, given the appropriate stance to possible evidence.
Huh? I've reread this sentence several times and it doesn't seem to make any sense. Do you want to expand on that a little?
13 Mar 03
My pixie is displeased.
lets put it this way then. Would you consider it an act of faith if i chose not to believe my cat was trying to kill me? Or that my toaster could tell me who would win the footy on the weekend, if only i could induce it to talk.
The reason i don't believe these things (well, undecided on the toaster) is that there is no, or next to no evidence to support it. Sure, my cat could keep eyeing my throat, and the toaster could be wearing a footy jumper when i get up in the morning, but that's not enough to convince me of something that incredible.
In other words, in an athiests mind, an incredible claim requires at least some proof.
13 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrA spray painted pixie on my shoulder would be proof. Lets assume my pixie dodged to my other shoulder.
Sorry if I was unclear. Suppose that he believes "there is no invisible pixie". Suppose that I then pull out a can of spray paint and spray the shoulder upon which the pixie allegedly sits, exposing what appears to be a pixie. If he stil ...[text shortened]... bject of faith, given the appropriate stance to possible evidence.