07 Sep 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecata good spot to be no doubt
While I agree that these things seem to stir what we call 'the spirit', I'm firmly on the fence as to attribution towards an external source. Actually, I think I'm probably leaning over the fence because I think I like the atheists' garden better.
07 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt is a joke. Don't take everything so seriously. It is good to laugh
So you should be Ignorant Hick?
Denying people a choice in their own labels is oppressive, and tyrannical.
And simply calling someone names to belittle them is bullying, and mean.
Very 'Christian' of you.
And no, you are not right.
BTW, still waiting for you to apologise for your Hitler insult you levelled at me.
sometimes. I even laugh when someone makes a comment to
belittle me for I know it is not true.
P.S. "Ignorant Hick" is a funny one. First time I've been called that.
What exactly did I say about you and Hitler? I don't remember.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't take everything seriously, I chose carefully what I do or do not take seriously.
It is a joke. Don't take everything so seriously. It is good to laugh
sometimes. I even laugh when someone makes a comment to
belittle me for I know it is not true.
P.S. "Ignorant Hick" is a funny one. First time I've been called that.
What exactly did I say about you and Hitler? I don't remember.
I don't think it advisable, or funny, to insult someone for humour, especially in a format
where so much is lost, no body language or tone of voice.
It is however, indeed, good to laugh...
The Ignorant Hick btw was not intended to be an accurate label, I don't know you well enough
to judge for starters. I picked something hypercritically applied to many of your geographic location
and beliefs simply as an aid to making my point.
And as to the 'what you said about Hitler'...
From the 'what if I am wrong' thread...
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=141801&page=3
" Originally posted by RJHinds
I think rwingett and googlefudge see Hitler as a great example of the
evolutionary progress of man.
I am trying hard to think of something less accurate and more insulting you could say to me, or about me,
but right now I can't think of anything.
This is a feckless and evidently false, and deeply insulting statement born of complete ignorance and malice.
Apologise or shut the hell up. "
I don't know if you were making another joke, or were serious (hence the it being bad to make that
kind of joke where you can't tell someone's tone). But it was offensive.
Hitler was a monster, and nothing to do with evolution, or my view of it.
To imply that I would hold Hitler to be a great example of anything other than an evil tyrant is deeply
insulting, and unfounded. Also completely wrong.
I have a reasonably thick skin to insults, and laughing it off is indeed often the best policy.
However implying I approve in some way of Hitler... That is stepping over the line.
If I was not outraged by that I would be at least tacitly implying some truth to it.
This is also why I took your other post, 'so seriously' as you put it.
And apologies to those otherwise in this thread, this will be my last post on this, off topic, in this thread.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Sep 11
The more relevant question to the subject of the thread...
People have different music preferences, we regard some music as dreadful and some as sublime.
And it is possible that different people hearing the same piece of music/song will come to diametrically
opposing views. One views it as sublime, and proof of the hand of god. The other views it as sentimental
dross not worthy of their time.
Both of these people could believe in god and both hold 'great music' to be sublime and evidence of god.
So my question, If god really had a hand in the pieces creation how is it that not everyone thinks that piece
is sublime and transcendent, or even likes it?
If there were pieces of music that truly everyone admired and found miraculous then your position might
make some sense.
But as I know of no music that absolutely nobody would dislike you are left with the knowledge that the
very same music/performance you think is so wonderful that it must be influenced/made/inspired by god,
is regarded by some people as terrible.
If it were really made by god I don't see how that could be.
07 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was trying to be facetious and it turned out to be sarcastic instead.
I don't take everything seriously, I chose carefully what I do or do not take seriously.
I don't think it advisable, or funny, to insult someone for humour, especially in a format
where so much is lost, no body language or tone of voice.
It is however, indeed, good to laugh...
The Ignorant Hick btw was not intended to be an accurate label, I don't ...[text shortened]... ise in this thread, this will be my last post on this, off topic, in this thread.
Hitler was definitely a poor choice but it was in my head because I
had read a post earlier that mentioned him.
As you see I am not a perfect Christian and I do apologize and ask
for your forgiveness. I did not realize what I had done until you
pointed this out. My statement was unappropriate. I am sorry.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThank you.
I was trying to be facetious and it turned out to be sarcastic instead.
Hitler was definitely a poor choice but it was in my head because I
had read a post earlier that mentioned him.
As you see I am not a perfect Christian and I do apologize and ask
for your forgiveness. I did not realize what I had done until you
pointed this out. My statement was unappropriate. I am sorry.
Apology accepted.
Let's go back to the issues, it much more fun.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeSorry,I did not reply you earlier.
The more relevant question to the subject of the thread...
People have different music preferences, we regard some music as dreadful and some as sublime.
And it is possible that different people hearing the same piece of music/song will come to diametrically
opposing views. One views it as sublime, and proof of the hand of god. The other views it ...[text shortened]... d by some people as terrible.
If it were really made by god I don't see how that could be.
We often use the words" Out of this world " to describe something truly superior,truly outstanding,whether music,painting or dancing or gymnastics etc.At the point of time when we exclaim like this,I say,we have instinctively recognised that there is something supernatural about it. When we say this thing,we are giving a subjective opinion about it which may or may not be agreed to by others.But the universal recognition of a thing as superlative was not the point.
The point was that an individual many a times straightaway ascribes something superior to God.Is this ascribing just an influence of the religion of the person e.g.rvsakhadeo or like in case of other instinctual recognitions,the truth?
It may be of interest here that anything "great" or let us say truly superhuman has been described in the Vedas as Godly--whether that something was good or bad.
In Yajurveda part 16,there is the famous Rudra Sukta. This Sukta calls the great god Rudra as the Lord of thieves,the Lord of dacoits and the Lord of murderers ! This in the third Anuvak of the Sukta. Rudra is,of course,called by many other positive adjectives there.But this Lordship of thieves,dacoits and murderers is also given to him.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI think it is largely an influence of the religion of the person. You ascribe it to God, I ascribe it to other things. More importantly though, in many cases where you have ascribed something to God, you will change your mind if you find out later how it happened and realise that it wasn't as miraculous as you first thought.
The point was that an individual many a times straightaway ascribes something superior to God.Is this ascribing just an influence of the religion of the person e.g.rvsakhadeo or like in case of other instinctual recognitions,the truth?
For example, I recently came across a video of "Ukranes got talent" 2009 winner Kseniya Simonova who does amazing sand animations. My first thought was that she has amazing natural artistic talent.
But today I looked her up on Wikipedia, and I find that to achieve what she did, she worked really really hard.
There is an advert that comes on tv, that says that a group of scientist studied a whole lot of people with amazing talents trying to find what the secret ingredient was. They found that the one thing they all had in common was hard work and lots of practice.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadJesse Bering has written a book titled ' The God Instinct: The Pschycology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life ' in which his point is that the belief in God is an intrinsic trait,developed over thousands of years,carrying powerful evolutionary benefits. God is not a delusion but a sophisticated cognitive illusion( For persons like me,this is still not acceptable). He says that there is an innate tendency of humans to reason as though God was deeply invested in their public lives and secret affairs. This view may support your post but may not be agreed by some of atheists here.
I think it is largely an influence of the religion of the person. You ascribe it to God, I ascribe it to other things. More importantly though, in many cases where you have ascribed something to God, you will change your mind if you find out later how it happened and realise that it wasn't as miraculous as you first thought.
For example, I recently cam ...[text shortened]... was. They found that the one thing they all had in common was hard work and lots of practice.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is the rub, these people who are masters of whatever they do get there through sheer hard work and determination. Malcolm Gladwell put out the theory in his book Outliers, which i haven't read, that to become a success in whatever specific task you choose you have to put in 10,000 hours of practice.
I think it is largely an influence of the religion of the person. You ascribe it to God, I ascribe it to other things. More importantly though, in many cases where you have ascribed something to God, you will change your mind if you find out later how it happened and realise that it wasn't as miraculous as you first thought.
For example, I recently cam ...[text shortened]... was. They found that the one thing they all had in common was hard work and lots of practice.
Tony Williams was a jazz drummer who burst onto the scene in 1963 with Miles Davis at the age of 17yrs. He was in effect a 'child prodigy', but he attributed his 'skill' to nothing more than 'hard work......very hard work'. As he said in an interview once -
"I used to practice eight hours a day, every day! From about 1956 until about 1962. It was a whole period in my life where nothing else was happening"
I've read similar quotes from other drummers and musicians who are considered 'masters' of their craft. People/viewers just see the end result, whatever it maybe, and don't see the countless hours, days, months and years work of hard work that gets these people to that point.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoWell I suspect he has not used science to back up his claims. Monotheism is not particularly common, and is quite clearly passed on from person to person rather than being instinctual.
Jesse Bering has written a book titled ' The God Instinct: The Pschycology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life ' in which his point is that the belief in God is an intrinsic trait,developed over thousands of years,carrying powerful evolutionary benefits.