romansh

Sorry, could not resist: Theology ... a subject without an object. Overall I thought it was a good sermon for people who are entrapped in a doctrinally dogmatic Christian sect. I suspect there aren't many in his flock, but his blog will have some outreach, I suppose. His comment on "God" not being the province of science, I thought was particularly wrong and misleading. If there is a cause and effect then science, if we put our minds to it, can have its say. Unless we think "God" has no effect and did not do anything, then God may as well not exist. Experiences of profound and deep clarity, joy, forgiveness, reconciliation, compassion, understanding, etc is God really? I call them experiences. I recommend to Phil he should read Robert Sapolsky's Behave: The Biology of Humans at Their Best and Worst. It's a dense read ... Alternatively ... in a library or bookshop read the last four summary pages. In a Spirit rooted within us? ... Needs more clarification and supporting evidence. Ultimately I see this as a step towards standing on our own two feet and going about the world understanding our connection (inseparableness) with it.

What happens to 'you' when one has a well-administered anesthetic? The second law of thermodynamics makes me very skeptical about life after death. Life appears to behave as a 'catalyst' for increasing entropy. And edit ... welcome David

This could have gone in many threads. Here Gus talks about how the Bible might be interpreted as being a determinist document at least in places.

Funnily enough, I see this related to free will. No surprise. I posted this before ... Will – rom's corner (home.blog) Desire is an aspect of our will. Just be aware that we have them and try and get a sense of where our desires come from ... similar to our 'aversions'. Letting go of our desires is a little bit like letting go of our egos. Somehow we want "better" and not being content with where we are now. A desire to rid ourselves of desire.

This young man, I think, does a god job against compatibilist free will.

And here we have a scientist telling a grieving rabbi what religion is. I think Einstein nailed it Letter to Dr. Robert Marcus - Albert Einstein (organism.earth) A human being is part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.

I don't know about religion itself, but I hope the practitioners might take the word religion a bit more literally and understand all is connected.

There's a lot going on here. There was nothing wrong with Derek's use of expletives recently. Was there any need to censor them? I think not. Would some hypothetical person be put off this forum possibly? Would some passer-by be put off if Derek was censored and possibly censured for using the expletives, possibly? Campbell quote coming up: You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. In this case, you are the arbiter of what is civil. So was the lecturer or I choosing to offend when we linked to the Islamic art depicting Mohamed? At some point, people might realize, or more like wake up, and choose not to be offended regardless of the others' intent. I understand it is not a free choice.

I don't think this would happen unless we were infected by a troll, and that would be dealt with in the normal course of events. I also don't think we need expletives to descend into senseless insults ... we can be far more eloquent than that. And this is by convention, and here we reinforce that convention. To me, it seems ridiculous that I could not quote certain passages from Mark Twain verbatim because of some cultural taboo. Cnut is still verboten but pussy got promoted to the ranks of respectable? You say a line needs to be drawn and you draw that line. Fair enough. But the world, never mind this forum, did not collapse with Derek's expletives. I would argue in the context and intent they were used all is in order. So ultimately, we are policing intent rather than word use, are we not? I am not saying don't censor word use, but be aware of what is really being censored. And back to Hitchens' argument being offended is not one.

Ahh self-censored.

Here's a case in point: Is this forum somehow better for asterisks?

Tricky ... what's your objective Paul? Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer used a derogatory word. Does it mean we should not use derogatory words under any circumstances? What you are trying to do here (I think) is manipulate intent. There was recently a case where a teacher was censured for telling off a student for using the n-word. But I suspect we give the n-word power by cowering before it. Is this our intent? Do you think dictionaries should censor words? Or should we enter an Orwellian realm where we can have no thought crime? I think my short answer is "No". I remember in high school, in English Lit. coming across the term "Spade" for a black person. I had a moment of cognitive dissonance when the expression "call a spade a spade" popped into my mind.

There is seeking to antagonize, being indifferent to antagonizing, and inadvertently antagonizing. I suppose similarly we can have a similar set to being antagonized. Speaking personally, I don't intentionally antagonize (often), but I do find myself reflecting the tone I perceive in someone's interaction. The latter is not intentional, but I can become aware of it. But I suppose horses for courses, but generally, I don't think being antagonistic works, but then does an emotionless logical argument work? Depends.

A trailer for a discussion coming near you soon:

Here's an interesting article on offence. Though it seems it's gone beyond offence to harm And the harmful picture is: Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg (720×542) (whyevolutionistrue.com)

Welcome wandering ... Sounds like your path has had its twists and turns. If you require any thoughts from a straight old atheistically inclined agnostic, just let me know; I'll be all too happy to oblige Have fun with your stay here rom

Hmmn? ... OK? At an Aussie rules match, I presume it is similar to a real football match (I'm rattlin' the chain here) do opposition fans sing derogatory songs about one another? Or is it banter?

This reminded me of Hitchens' observation that being offended is not an argument: Where might we stand on Hitchens' observation? I don't know what and how many words might be considered offensive. The strange thing is we have self censored so that Paul won't be able to us. On another forum, we weren't allowed to snigger for sort of obvious reasons. But human beings can be a little strange. Thoughts?

I just tried writing the word ^^^^^ cat (puzzy cat) and your prudish political correctness word filter won't let me.

I must admit I read David a little differently. (From my perspective) He thinks he has found some valuable truth, which is fair enough. And he wants to share it, which is also fair enough. But he is not willing to have his "truth" tested. I think that might be true for all of us to some degree. The trick is to be "pushy" without being overbearing. Sometimes I stray and that too is OK.

Welcome Jim ... I don't think you'll encounter a problem here. I think I might be the longest lasting member here that might be considered "pushy". And I'm a pussycat really Welcome again. rom

Agree completely ... the questions are formulated poorly. I was cooler than you ... more of a teal (blue), a similar level of functionality, but less scientism than you (surprising). But the questions require a fair degree of interpolation.

Just for laughs .... I will add it to my list of things to blog about Theos Science & Religion Compass (sciencereligioncompass.org)

You of course are absolutely right. I got caught up in the idiom. Apologies.

Derek ... it is not fair to quote people to prove a point.