Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 119288 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #325
Maybe sobering up?

He he :)
Something that you can't with your Irn Bru, can you Protestant friend? :)
A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #326
So. Can god create a stone he cannot lift?

By the very definition of God, God can anything that your small imagination can imagine and much, much, infinitely much more,
He "can" everything. If that satisfies you limitations, he even can lift stones he "can't lift". Cappice?

God, unlike us, is not limited by logics or any other limitation you can imagine. It comes from the definition.
It's a fucking definition, that I agree. :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-08, 21:39:37 by Belfrager
A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #327
My solution is to admit self-referential logic. This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone.

Very well said. But then there's no point on discussing with others.... and you don't want such a thing.
To "win" a logic discussion can be like a drug. Addictive. :)
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #328

To "win" a logic discussion can be like a drug. Addictive. :)
Yes, it can be. It can also get one to the proverbial high horse, making the others realise that they are on a low horse, on a tiny pony. Looks like this is a regularly necessary realisation for Jseaton.

But for me the expression never meant anything.
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-09, 08:28:31 by ersi

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #329


To "win" a logic discussion can be like a drug. Addictive. :)
Yes, it can be. It can also get one to the proverbial high horse, making the others realise that they are on a low horse, on a tiny pony. Looks like this is a regularly necessary realisation for Jseaton.

But for me the expression never meant anything.

Hmmm, perhaps there is no comparable saying like this in your culture, but nevertheless, you should be able to decipher that this means believing you are above others in importance simply because you are spatially above them--a simple metaphor for being a pompous ass.  ('Low horse' does not compute here). 

Humility, compassion and understanding are qualities that lean towards the Divine (perfection), so you're going the wrong way guy.  (This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc). 
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #330
Quote
(This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).

Let's suppose for the purpose of discussion that there was a god giga-years ago. Obviously, the evolution of assorted galaxy collections hasn't evolved to the point of making bacteria, let alone human precursors. What qualities would that god have? Would they in any way resemble human emotions? Needs? Wants? Desires?

What claptrap.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #331

Quote
(This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).

Let's suppose for the purpose of discussion that there was a god giga-years ago. Obviously, the evolution of assorted galaxy collections hasn't evolved to the point of making bacteria, let alone human precursors. What qualities would that god have? Would they in any way resemble human emotions? Needs? Wants? Desires?

What claptrap.


Not at all sir.  During the heydays of making up Gods, people weren't very imaginative in coming with godlike qualities that would stand the test of time.  People knew what people were like, so they said he was like us or we were like him, whatever.  Why are you asking me what god is like?  If there is a god, there is not one single human word that could characterize him, so I sure as f**k ain't gonna try.  If there is a god we could only describe him in human terms, all of which pertain to and are limited by the human mind and human experiences.  I don't believe that god would be anything like what we have ever known or experienced--trying to say anything about god would be an exercise in futility. 

Take your pre-bacteria god and shove it. 
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #332

So. Can god create a stone he cannot lift?

By the very definition of God, God can anything that your small imagination can imagine and much, much, infinitely much more,
He "can" everything. If that satisfies you limitations, he even can lift stones he "can't lift". Cappice?

God, unlike us, is not limited by logics or any other limitation you can imagine. It comes from the definition.
It's a fucking definition, that I agree. :)

:lol: You make this too easy.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #333
Quote
He "can" everything. If that satisfies you limitations, he even can lift stones he "can't lift". Cappice?

God, unlike us, is not limited by logics or any other limitation you can imagine. It comes from the definition.

I suspected that god would be able to f**k a goat. No I know it for sure.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #334

('Low horse' does not compute here).
If high horse is an entity, then so is low horse, logically. High and low compute in the exact same way as warm and cold. I may lack the culture, but I have the logic.

Humility, compassion and understanding are qualities that lean towards the Divine (perfection), so you're going the wrong way guy.
Here you are actually logical - surprisingly, because normally you are not.

Let's be consistent with logic here for once. You are on a mission to take me off my high horse, therefore, logically, you want to seat me as low as yourself. My aim, on the other hand, is to point your low horse out to you, so you could select a more noble seat, if you want. How do the qualitative leanings look now?

(This is also a major reason why I don't believe that, if there is a God, he is any of the Gods made up by humans so far, because none of them exhibit Godlike qualities--they all exhibit human frailties (anger, egotism, revenge, irrationality, etc).
Humans display human qualities. Divinities display divine qualities. This should be common sense. Real gods are not made up. Real God is and exists no matter what we think or do or don't. This should be common sense too.

When we got this cleared up, the question remains why you keep getting all enthusiastic about man-made gods and have decidedly nothing to do with the real and true one.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #335


('Low horse' does not compute here).
If high horse is an entity, then so is low horse, logically. High and low compute in the exact same way as warm and cold. I may lack the culture, but I have the logic.

Not any good if it's meaningless.
James J

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #336
You make this too easy.

Yeah, I know and, yet, I'm still waiting for so many to get there. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #337
Humility, compassion and understanding are qualities that lean towards the Divine (perfection), so you're going the wrong way guy.
Here you are actually logical - surprisingly, because normally you are not.

Let's be consistent with logic here for once. You are on a mission to take me off my high horse, therefore, logically, you want to seat me as low as yourself. My aim, on the other hand, is to point your low horse out to you, so you could select a more noble seat, if you want. How do the qualitative leanings look now?

Your idea of noble is not anything I would want to aspire to. 
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #338
"Humans display human qualities. Divinities display divine qualities. This should be common sense. Real gods are not made up. Real God is and exists no matter what we think or do or don't. This should be common sense too."

You are suggesting that you know and understand the divine--forget the high horse, you are going to need oxygen where your head is going.  The true qualities of divinity are unknown to all and I suggest they couldn't be expressible in human terms or understood by humans.  Now please, 99.999% of me does not believe that any divine being exists, so those are 'Plan B' thoughts only...lol. 
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #339

Real gods are not made up. Real God is and exists no matter what we think or do or don't. This should be common sense too.

When we got this cleared up, the question remains why you keep getting all enthusiastic about man-made gods and have decidedly nothing to do with the real and true one.

1. Which deity is the "Real God"?

2. Common sense is not so common apparently, as you cleverly leave out that religion is not inherent in our beings/makeup, rather it is learned.

3. One arrives at the conclusion that you'll be proving how your "Real God" is not man-made and how the "others" are man-made?

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #340
2. Common sense is not so common apparently, as you cleverly leave out that religion is not inherent in our beings/makeup, rather it is learned.
Actually there are indications that religion is inherent. For example Robespierre, one of the main architects of the gorious heydays of the French Revolution, having slain enough priests, monks and nuns to his taste, made unambiguous moves to institute an alternative religion made up by himself. Another example is Stalin, the supreme leader and father of the peoples of the USSR. Once the Orthodox Church had been pushed basically underground, Stalin's personal cult took quasi-religious forms.

These examples show that religion cannot be eliminated without replacement, which basically means religion is inherent, an inevitable aspect of what it means to be a human. When you try to ignore it or eradicate it, it will come back bugging you in gross shapes.

It's also philosophically meaningful to assume that spirituality in fact is inherent, because it only makes sense to formulate the concept of God in such way that God exists no matter what you think or do or don't. If you think God's existence depends on whether you believe in God or not, or if God needs to be defended against disbelievers, you are not really being spiritual or religious. When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious.

In any other case you're just talking. For example, have you really proven atheism to yourself so that you are aware of everything it entails and are okay with it? Thought so.

3. One arrives at the conclusion that you'll be proving how your "Real God" is not man-made and how the "others" are man-made?
I never saw you as a proof kind of guy, more like an emotion-driven shifter. If you are proof-driven now, then this must have been another conversion. Too much conversion is bad for you.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #341
...Robespierre, one of the main architects of the gorious heydays of the French Revolution, having slain enough priests, monks and nuns to his taste, made unambiguous moves to institute an alternative religion made up by himself. Another example is Stalin, the supreme leader and father of the peoples of the USSR. Once the Orthodox Church had been pushed basically underground, Stalin's personal cult took quasi-religious forms.

These examples show that religion cannot be eliminated without replacement, which basically means religion is inherent, an inevitable aspect of what it means to be a human. When you try to ignore it or eradicate it, it will come back bugging you in gross shapes.
Sounds not proving anything.

3.
Wasn't answered.
:rolleyes:

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #342
You don't need proof, o mighty Guru Josh. You know everything. Proofs are for babies. And for colonels.

Edit: I just understood how Jseaton seems so familiar. He is straight out of movies and comic books:
Hollywood Atheist. First step - don't believe in god. Second step - constantly be angry at the god you don't believe in. Shake your fist at the sky and think blasphemous thoughts, if god doesn't strike you down by lightning be more angry at him.
It's like something I heard in a French ad. I don't know if I heard right, but it sounded like "téléréalité cauchemar" :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-10, 07:15:44 by ersi

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #343
You know everything.
It's actually just about the opposite.
Do I know something? I assume I know something -- for practical purposes. Like Euclid assumed that the continuum is flat and parallel lines don't intersect.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #344
Quote
Like Euclid assumed that the continuum is flat and parallel lines don't intersect.

They do! But there are rare cases where they don't. It only happens in a condition of Euclidean pornography.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #345
It was mammography. Euclid really liked mammography.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #346
Ersi: "Edit: I just understood how Jseaton seems so familiar. He is straight out of movies and comic books:" 

You are not the first one to mistake me for a Super Hero. (So you get your info from comic books huh?  Fascinating.) 
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #347
Ersi: "When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious."

God is becoming less and less of a necessity to the creation of our universe.  Darwinism booted God out of biology and quantum physics is delivering the coup de grace to God's necessity.  Only a fool would say they could prove or disprove God, however, science is answering the deep 'Why?' questions that are part of fundamental human curiosity much better than religion ever has or ever can.  The universe is not mystical any longer because physics is bringing us closer to seeing our world, universe and (perhaps), multiverse in terms that previous generations peddled as supernatural. 

If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything, the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility. Coincidence? Maybe. But data like this coming in from revolutionary new tools promises to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess, but is a really God necessary to produce nothing? 
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #348
JS, your posts are appallingly unengaging. If you ache for interaction, maybe try answering some of my old posts. I have written here several posts the length of a treatise. For example here is my response to the problem of evil https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=33.msg9063#msg9063
In this post, instead of Euthyphro dilemma, read Epicurus' paradox. I corrected the mistake a few posts onwards.

And to help you with quoting. When you select some text and press Quick-Quote, the quote will be thrown into the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page, but the Quick Reply box is closed by default, you have to open it by pressing the + on its side. Even when the box is closed, the Quick Quote still silently works.

Otherwise use the normal Quote button, but then you have to edit the markup properly, which is not so easy.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #349
And to help you with quoting. When you select some text and press Quick-Quote, the quote will be thrown into the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page, but the Quick Reply box is closed by default, you have to open it by pressing the + on its side. Even when the box is closed, the Quick Quote still silently works.

Although I should point out, the quick quote doesn't do nested quotes properly at this moment.