Neanderthals

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure competing scientists who disagree makes the whole edifice = to guesswork.

You should really make a study of the scientific method before you make such sweeping judgments.

You only make such sweeping statements because to accept any of that data would go against your religious dogma. If such scientific debate were going on in any other ...[text shortened]... ny respect for your opinions, you are just full of delusions engendered by your religious dogma.

Do you mean I have become no better than Dasa with my opinions?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you mean I have become no better than Dasa with my opinions?

I wouldn't go that far. He is a one trick pony.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
naturally if you had known anything about it yourself you may have provided those
details and here you are hypocritically calling others out for being ignorant, jeesh indeed.
What is it with you you always gotta be condemning people that dont meet
your own self imposed expectations?

This is rich coming from you. Weren't you all up in here a few months back claiming that most Christians aren't real Christians because they didn't fit your tiny world-view?

Anyways, the details aren't even relevant. What is relevant is how you square the evidence with your "6,000-year-old-earth" theories and other nonsense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is rich coming from you. Weren't you all up in here a few months back claiming that most Christians aren't real Christians because they didn't fit your tiny world-view?

Anyways, the details aren't even relevant. What is relevant is how you square the evidence with your "6,000-year-old-earth" theories and other nonsense.

See, here we have two christians at total odds with one another, you can't even agree on your own dogma. Why would your god allow that?

Try entertaining the possibililty, however small in your eyes, that if there is a god it is a non-interacting one, maybe it rolled the magic dice kick starting our universe, I have no evidence otherwise, and then just let the dramas all play out with no interference. Maybe this god stacked the universe so exactly right that the rules allow life here in this universe.

Maybe this god set it up so it could just lay back and watch it all unfold. Maybe this god is really in a cosmic high school class and IT is being judged on how well it constructed the rules of our universe, how long it can last, how many advanced civilizations are allowed to accrue (ours not included, not in the advanced category)

There are all kinds of alternate views of how such a god would play out in this universe and it just seems to me pathetically man made the way religions of the world anthropomorphise the attributes of your gods.

Originally posted by sonhouse
See, here we have two christians at total odds with one another, you can't even agree on your own dogma. Why would your god allow that?

Try entertaining the possibililty, however small in your eyes, that if there is a god it is a non-interacting one, maybe it rolled the magic dice kick starting our universe, I have no evidence otherwise, and then just l ...[text shortened]... hetically man made the way religions of the world anthropomorphise the attributes of your gods.

..for not to anthropomorphise christianity would be quite boring and unappealing to the ego

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you mean I have become no better than Dasa with my opinions?

You're all unique.
Dont compare yourself with no one.Quite impossible,i realize

Originally posted by karoly aczel
..for not to anthropomorphise christianity would be quite boring and unappealing to the ego

But early religions didn't anthro anything, they would worship or use as their guide, a bear or tiger or a hawk or something.

I think the humanizing came much later.

So which style is superior?

Originally posted by sonhouse
But early religions didn't anthro anything, they would worship or use as their guide, a bear or tiger or a hawk or something.

I think the humanizing came much later.

So which style is superior?

I would look to the Tao, amongst other things for real answers.
Taoman's thread has a good op, explaining how Taoism came from Chinese shamanism.

But not an animal or a person.(To give you an answer)

My answers may not be completely satisfactory, but I do believe in the process of elimination.

edit:if you can use "or something" as a guide you prolly are getting past words,eh? 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
See, here we have two christians at total odds with one another, you can't even agree on your own dogma. Why would your god allow that?

Try entertaining the possibililty, however small in your eyes, that if there is a god it is a non-interacting one, maybe it rolled the magic dice kick starting our universe, I have no evidence otherwise, and then just l ...[text shortened]... hetically man made the way religions of the world anthropomorphise the attributes of your gods.

Here is another view... try entertaining this possibility, Sonhouse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Originally posted by sonhouse
But early religions didn't anthro anything, they would worship or use as their guide, a bear or tiger or a hawk or something.

I think the humanizing came much later.

So which style is superior?

A Tibetan monk taught me, there is no superior way. What works for some will not work for others. Hence he (the monk) sought to convert no one and really enjoyed the diversity of the west rather than have any attitude of superiority.

Whatever floats your boat-as long as your boat is getting floated.

Another point I have made before is that two people from different religons can swear black and blue that their way is the superior way all the while they are climbing the same 'mountain'.
It's not till you get to the top that you see all, on the way up you see only your own dharma.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
A Tibetan monk taught me, there is no superior way. What works for some will not work for others. Hence he (the monk) sought to convert no one and really enjoyed the diversity of the west rather than have any attitude of superiority.

Whatever floats your boat-as long as your boat is getting floated.

Another point I have made before is that two peo ...[text shortened]... t's not till you get to the top that you see all, on the way up you see only your own dharma.

But the boat that sunhouse is on is sinking, so he needs to hurry up and
get it fixed or get on another boat.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
A Tibetan monk taught me, there is no superior way. What works for some will not work for others. Hence he (the monk) sought to convert no one and really enjoyed the diversity of the west rather than have any attitude of superiority.

Whatever floats your boat-as long as your boat is getting floated.

Another point I have made before is that two peo ...[text shortened]... t's not till you get to the top that you see all, on the way up you see only your own dharma.

But you are essentially claiming something too, and claiming that it is superior to those who disagree.
I think the Tibetan monk was wrong. He cannot claim that his way is correct without essentially claiming that mine is wrong.
And what if I want my boat to sink?

The whole 'everything is correct' philosophy just doesn't add up. Its illogical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are essentially claiming something too, and claiming that it is superior to those who disagree.
I think the Tibetan monk was wrong. He cannot claim that his way is correct without essentially claiming that mine is wrong.
And what if I want my boat to sink?

The whole 'everything is correct' philosophy just doesn't add up. Its illogical.

Okay! Mr. Spock.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are essentially claiming something too, and claiming that it is superior to those who disagree.
I think the Tibetan monk was wrong. He cannot claim that his way is correct without essentially claiming that mine is wrong.
And what if I want my boat to sink?

The whole 'everything is correct' philosophy just doesn't add up. Its illogical.

He made no claims like that.
As I remember he had no other opinions other than to express his love of the west and diversity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the boat that sunhouse is on is sinking, so he needs to hurry up and
get it fixed or get on another boat.

sonhouse is fine. He'll be fine whatever the (possible) "afterlife".