Jump to content

romansh

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1,890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

Everything posted by romansh

  1. Well this was sort of my point in the a/ignostic thread. Of course it is only an opinion that the Nazis who self identified as Christian are not Christian in actual fact. But I hope you see the contradiction in your two positions you have stated. Who is the censor that limits definitions? And more for Joseph than you Elen, if I were to express the opinion that may Germans had succumbed to a nonsense belief that Arians are somehow a master race and better than say Slavs or Jews, would that be inappropriate? After all it is just an opinion.
  2. For some this is the end suffering … not seeing the world in duality/
  3. Don't they get to define for themselves who they are?
  4. This was likely true for the senior ranks … by and large And likely not true for the rank and file that carried out the orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany And of course Gott Mit Uns was on most German soldier belt buckles - regardless of denomination.
  5. I get this Joseph. For me, calling a concept nonsense is being 'nice'. I think you may have pointed out reason alone won't persuade anyone. So from my point of view I am using the tools at hand. Whether it works or not is another matter. Also I think we have to consider bystanders who have not made up their minds. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, some opinions are just flat out wrong. I don't mean to offend and if I do offend anyone my apologies. But as you are likely well aware the responsibility feeling of offence lies not just with the offender but also with the offended.
  6. Well this assumes God exists. I wanted to reply to this before I was away last week I'm not disagreeing with your experience here Joseph … I could argue I've had similar but my interpretations are different. Firstly, I think we need to be a little circumspect about how we interpret our experiences. I have given my example of the red kitchen chair. There are similar arguments around the experience of sound. I used to have (and I suppose I still do at times) a sense of free will. We both seem have come to a conclusion that this experience is an illusion. So we understand we don't necessarily take our experiences at face value. My god type experiences are more of awe than anything else. The few that I have had watching an organic compound crystallize between two slides in one of those old fashioned slide projectors. Repeating the experiment two days later for the class was also awe inspiring, more because of the class's reaction than anything else. Looking at a four-cell pre-zygote … a potential human being - down a microscope, was like looking at a reflection of the universe. These are just a couple. Now, Harris and Pollan have recommended psychedelics (now more commonly called entheogens) as a way of experiencing spirituality. Now I am not recommending this; but I do note that the indole ethylamines that form many of the entheogenic compounds are closely related to serotonin, melatonin, tryptophan, and other compounds that the body needs and does produce. I just wonder I f on occasion the body produces an entheogen as a byproduct, that gives us our experience of god or awe? So we are experiencing the universe for sure. Whether this is actually god, not so sure? My take.
  7. Pain, beauty, grief, suffering etc are a product of the brain chemistry.
  8. Perhaps I will, but you are confounding must be quantifiable with can be quantifiable. And which of these are not written in grey matter?
  9. I can't help thinking when people talk about god, they are somehow confounding the concept of god with the universe. I am not denying people's claims regarding the experience of god (or God). But we are definitely made up of stardust and in this sense we are connected to the universe. It would appear our mathematical descriptions of the fundamental forces suggest they extend to infinity. Quantum theories suggest that the probability of events happening are determined by the state of the universe. I think Carl Sagan's words We are a way for the cosmos to know itself … are quite telling (I might quibble understand vs know). We are continually experiencing the universe.
  10. No you were flat out wrong … but could not find it in yourself to admit it.
  11. I just strummed through my On the Origin … I did not see any table or graph (I was disappointed) And what I have read of On the origin I don't recall a single measurement being reported. Comparisons yes. Can you give me an example of non material. Things like concepts and ideas are writ large on paper or in grey matter.
  12. I could … but in the past when I have made similar requests of you, you have brushed me off. Try the the thread where you asked the question
  13. So you (or someone) has developed the concept of god from first principles? Some claim to experience god, this experience I count as observation, in the same way I experience being cold (regardless of my body temperature).
  14. So what is the quantity of evolution? I am not saying quantifiability does not help, but as a flat statement I can't help thinking it is flat out wrong. I gave this example already. Then it is quite possible god does not exist, and it should be considering it as a possibility.
  15. Two things here Elen: Firstly the dark matter and energy is a far from settled matter. There are competing hypotheses like MOND. Secondly, if dark matter and energy do exist they are observable through their interaction with the rest of the universe. So the terms visible and invisible are a little circumspect. For example microwaves are not visible in that we can only "see" them when they interact with other matter.
  16. Does it have to be measurable? Things like uncertainty principle would argue not. in that velocity and position cannot be measured simultaneously. There is nothing a priori that states that science has to be measurable. For example what is the is the measure of evolution or biology? Science can be purely descriptive. So in that sense something must be observable and not necessarily measurable. Yes repeatability is a bonus. But when we are talking about measurement, the limits of measurement are given. We look for precision and accuracy. Similarly independent observers are nice, but the fact that another observer is neither here nor there. If I happen to experience demons and you don't, does not make the study of the experience of demons any less scientifically valid. Is that like saying the scientific observation of god is a nonsense? I would agree especially if there is nothing to observe.
  17. No I did not answer it thormas. Did you notice my I was travelling? I also took the question as … I am not sure how to put it … at best rhetorical? But as you seem genuinely desirous I don't welcome everyone,in that, as I am not a Progressive Christian I don't feel I should be welcoming of everyone. It would be like me welcoming visitors to your house. I enjoy points of view that open a possibility that I have not seen before, I don't enjoy points of view that I happen to find condescending or perhaps even disingenuous. As to Joseph's comment on me calling a the concept of a literal hell a nonsense. This comment was made without knowing some PCs believe this. Here's my problem, surely there are some concepts that are a nonsense … take a flat Earth. Or perhaps something more dangerous … the MMR anti vax propaganda is nonsense or antisemitism/racism as a creed is nonsense? Should I stand up for what I believe in or be 'nice'? But back to your original point … I treat you and everyone else here as I treat everyone else in the rest of the wide world.
  18. This I find fairly typical ... a claim is made, an aspect that makes the claim difficult to substantiate is pointed out, and then some glib remark is made. It would appear there is sincerity missing in this discussion. Good luck with your plate. I had not but i looked at just now. John Macquarie seems to think the scientific process when applied to reality is naive. Oh well. I must admit I find his line of thought incredibly dishonest.
  19. Only if you can prove solipsism is false, Good luck with that. I am travelling at the moment ... back at the weekend.
  20. Based on your suspect experience? Currently I would predict I would be an agnostic theist, so the answer would be I still would not know, but I would believe.
  21. I don't think so. The problem with reason is the axioms it is based on, the access to the axioms is to some degree limited. Reason gets updated as our axioms are up dated. Well lets call this sixth sense, intuition for the moment. It was reason and logic that leads me to think my experience can be misleading. The problem for me with this argument it is my brain that is causing this experience whether of reason or that of intuition. I have no problem with intuition, apparently I rely on my intuition a lot. But ultimately intuition should be checked against reality to the best of our ability. At least that is the way I see it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service