Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 111925 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

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #600
You are talking common sense. This is totally out of place here. Only people like JS can know the real meaning of science and he uses it to witch-hunt ignorant religious wackos such as us into hell where we belong.


Yes... you're right.  :lol:


Religious people like you are not wackos, you just can't imagine that reality is what it is.  For you guys, somehow things cannot be the way your senses (including 'common'), dictate to you that they are.  You guys are like Peter Pans who never want to grow up and face reality, and you seem to do it simply because reality is not good enough for you or it has treated you badly.  You (and everyone else on earth), can imagine a better place and so the Peter Pans of the world think that if you can imagine it, then it must be true even though you have not one single shred of usable empirical evidence to put forth in favor of it (please don't bother me with your mumbo-jumbo logic again ersi, it's really quite tedious).  Reality has one dimension, there are no offshoots of reality, reality gets neither deeper nor shallower--it is what it is and there is no more.  You can understand more of it, experience more of it and enjoy more of it, but you can't willy-nilly change what it is.  If you want to spend you life chasing rainbows (gods, mysticism, gremlins etc.), then you have missed the meaning of life simply because you never knew (REAL-ized), what you had in the first place.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #601
there are two kind of realities .

1. Pleasure Principle
2. Reality Principle

that's how some people sometimes , cherry-picking ..

That's Normal.

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #602
Pleasure is certainly a part of the one reality we all live in, so I'm not sure what you are driving at here Sparta.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #603
Religion seems to be a necessity for humankind.
Take it away and we are lost.
I think this is the only possible explanation for Kardashianism.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #604
Belfrager, It is fascinating that there are many people who would echo that stuff from jseaton2311. Many of the same happen to believe anything space scientists tell them without any proof. Time after time when a space scientist junkie has found he is on the wrong direction his theory (and what it normally is) changes to a new theory and so it goes on.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #605
Forgive me (or ignore me...) if I'm intruding. But
The sheer mathematical certainty that there must be a multitude of planets conducive to intelligent life is what causes me to think that they exist.
What precisely is this "sheer mathematical certainty" you speak of?
Some sort of metaphysical frequentism? :)
How much nano sized anyway? that's a funny idea, they would see us as giants...
How could they see "us" at all? Unless it's "macro-scopes all the way up!" :)
The reason Heisenberg said that is not possible to be aware where a particle is, to determinate simultaneously location and speed, was because to observing it the observer influences the phenomena. (by way of needing to project light - or any other form of energy on it.)
Not quite: The actual mathematics of the theory preclude the simultaneous measurement of such "properties" (no matter how they're defined or observed...). The common misconception, that it's the means of measurement that's responsible for the Hobson's Choice -- well, math is hard! Some other things aren't, so much!
(Perhaps we should consider Dobbin's Choice? :) But I'd surmise -by looking out for himself- Hobson did more than Dobbins could... Which, in this context, is to say: Epistemology precedes science; and subsumes it. And, yes, ersi and Belfrager --and no, James; you're wrong-- that means metaphysics has to be taken account of, if you want much more from science: But I'm likely alone in thinking that's where things are going; and, certainly, out on a ledge -- in thinking that that's where they should go!
Given that epistemology is primary, a re-interpretation of science as a "how do we know what we think, seem to know and must believe" discipline (what we think we know...for short) -- becomes an area where nobody knows why...
Why anything!
Why not nothing? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #606

Pleasure is certainly a part of the one reality we all live in, so I'm not sure what you are driving at here Sparta.   :knight:  :cheers:


not everyone can accept realities , even that was valid and legitimate .

and more like to accept imaginary realities that please them .


  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #607
The parliament of Finland voted pro gay marriage. The archbishop of the church is positive about it. On the same weekend, over 13 000 members left the church in protest (in a country of 5.5 million) http://yle.fi/uutiset/kirkosta_eroaminen_kiihtyi_sunnuntaina_-_viikonloppuna_erosi_13_184_jasenta/7660768

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #608
Google's best translation:
Quote
Gender neutral marriage law around the surging discussion activates during the weekend once again resigned from the church. During the weekend, the Church, resigned from a total of 13 184 members.

In particular, Archbishop Kari Mäkinen liberals comments in support of gender-neutral marriage were part of the church within the suivaantumaan. Eroakirkosta.fi site, according to a gender-neutral marriage law because of different had given, inter alia, the following feedback:

- I do not pay gay church no longer a penny of money. I join a course back as soon ku Kari Mäkinen, or different from, and the dedication of the church refuses to gays.

- The Church has abandoned their Lord and the Bible the word. Today, it showed me the Archbishop Mäkinen wicked Comment of the Church of the need to change the perception of marriage.

- The Church of the line against the Bible. Most of the bishops and priests do not stick to the Word of God, but to learn to change public opinion with.

- Eroni reasons are Bishop Kari Mäkinen speeches and gender-neutral marriage law !!

- The Church of decision-makers, remember Sodom and comora. The church belongs to act according to the teachings of the Bible. When do we have to tolerate the animal involved and pedophiles ???

The Church of the difference in the gender-neutral marriage law supporters, in turn, justified the retirement age as follows:

- In fact, I resigned yesterday in the Church as a result of all the Christian Democrats (Päivi Räsänen once again set the standard) voted against gender-neutral marriage. In fact, I do not feel gay or not such, but I think it is incredibly short-sighted and, frankly, intellectually less-than trying to isolate a certain group of people as an institution, which is created and operated by the people.

Campaign for Equality, equal marriage, belittling, all of the people all have their own taipumukseksensa, the rules do not dictate.

- Women Priests discrimination. Same-sex couples discrimination. The Church of the management function is to both these issues have been consistent tiresome and slow. Tolerance? Forgiveness? Understanding of life?

On Friday, the Church, resigned from the site of the 2 612 members, Saturday and Sunday, 5 144 5 428.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #609

Google's best translation:
- The Church of decision-makers, remember Sodom and comora.

Shouldn't it translate: - The Church of decision-makers, remember Sodom and Camorra?  :right:

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #610
Translations won't help who cannot read at all. Sodom (and whatever the other town's name) wasn't doomed because of homosexuality, rather because of violence.
Relating homosexuality with "animal involved and pedophiles" confirms that they don't know what they are talking about.
Marriage, here, is a civil matter, not a religious one. Churches don't have a word to say about it - but they are free to disagree according to their doctrines.
So far.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #611

Google's best translation:

Be happy with it. Estonian google-translates far worse than Finnish. Finnish is actually understandable.

Anyway, here's a summary of the story. The heading: Resignation from the church accelerated on Sunday - 13.184 members left on weekend.

"According to the website Eroakirkosta.fi [resignfromthechurch] both the liberal and the more strict interpreters of the Bible are leaving now. Remarks by the Archbishop Kari Mäkinen supportive of the law of gender-neutral marriage prompted an increase in the rate of resignation of those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman."

Some comments by those opposing the law:

"I'm not paying the church a penny any more. I will of course join back as soon as Mäkinen resigns or the church refuses to wed gays."

"The church has given up its Lord and the word of the Bible. This was demonstrated by the godless remark by Archbishop Mäkinen on the necessity for the church to change the way marriage is understood."

"The church line is against the Bible. Most of the bishops and priests don't stay with the Word of God, they change as the general opinion changes."

"I leave because of Mäkinen's talks and because of the law of gender-neutral marriage!"

"Decision-makers in the church, remember Sodom and Gomorrah. The church has to obey the doctrine of the Bible. Will we soon have to tolerate those who mess with animals and pedophiles?"

Some comments by the resigned liberal members, those who favour gender-neutral policies:

"I resigned the church yesterday because all Christian Democrats (Päivi Räsänen foremost) voted against the law of gender-neutral marriage. I don't know homosexuals nor am I myself one, but in my opinion it's incredibly short-sighted or even retarded to isolate a group of people from a man-created institution."

"Belittling of equal marriage, everybody is human, everybody with their own tendencies, there can be no rule about it."

"Discrimination against female priests. Discrimination against couples of same sex. Actions of the church leadership have been consistently sluggish and slow on both issues. Tolerance? Forgiveness? Comprehension of life?"


Translations won't help who cannot read at all. Sodom (and whatever the other town's name) wasn't doomed because of homosexuality, rather because of violence.

Actually, if you can read, it was because of violent insistence on homosexuality without any regard to arguments to the contrary. It was not because of a sin singled out, but because sins had piled upon sins.


Relating homosexuality with "animal involved and pedophiles" confirms that they don't know what they are talking about.

Those who normalise one sin, normalise a host of them. And when they say they are not normalising sins, then they don't know what they are talking about. They don't even recognise sin as a meaningful concept. Those who don't recognise sin as a meaningful concept, they are also unable to recognise crime and punishment as meaningful concepts. Those who don't recognise crime and punishment as meaningful concepts should not have any say in legal matters, because law is all about what's permissible and what's not.


Marriage, here, is a civil matter, not a religious one. Churches don't have a word to say about it - but they are free to disagree according to their doctrines.

The State performs registration of marriage. The Church performs sanctification of marriage. Without the church you will only have the registration, not marriage in the complete sense. Western statistics confirm this: More children are born outside registered marriages than inside.

When states are godless and people are churchless, nobody even bothers with the pointless registration. Then what point is there for gays to demand the "right" for registration, when nobody else sees any "right" or purpose in it?

When a church weds gays, then marriage has ceased to be a sacrament in that church. Similarly, in Western countries the registration of marriage has ceased to be a privilege of any sort. It does not confer any rights - if it did, everybody would want to get married, but statistics say hardly anyone cares. Therefore it's not an issue of "equal rights", because it's not an issue of any sort of rights whatsoever. It's also definitely not a dignity issue, because people with dignity do not publicise their sexual orientation. Gay rightists are fussing about nothing for no other reason than to publicise and normalise their sin.

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #612

It was not because of a sin singled out, but because sins had piled upon sins.

Right.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #613
Similarly, in Western countries the registration of marriage has ceased to be a privilege of any sort. It does not confer any rights - if it did, everybody would want to get married, but statistics say hardly anyone cares.

Let me get this straight: the fact that people don't get married just for the privileges is a bad thing? (Yes, there are privileges galore, and no, I did not get married for them.)

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #614
I got married because the judge told me I had to.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #615

Similarly, in Western countries the registration of marriage has ceased to be a privilege of any sort. It does not confer any rights - if it did, everybody would want to get married, but statistics say hardly anyone cares.

Let me get this straight: the fact that people don't get married just for the privileges is a bad thing?
The fact that people don't care is a bad thing. And when same-sex marriage laws get pushed through, the common-sense definition of marriage goes down the drain and we have no reason to care at all anymore. Care about marriage, loyalty, duty to the offspring, meaningfulness of legal definitions - absolutely no reason.


(Yes, there are privileges galore, and no, I did not get married for them.)

Yes, I know some of the things they call privileges in marriage. But, like most people, you didn't get married because of them. There were other factors that mattered more. When other factors matter more, then the privileges are not worth the name. Privileges not worth the name are not really privileges. At best they are so-called privileges.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #616
Yes, I know some of the things they call privileges in marriage. But, like most people, you didn't get married because of them. There were other factors that mattered more. When other factors matter more, then the privileges are not worth the name. Privileges not worth the name are not really privileges. At best they are so-called privileges.

Without these "privileges not worth the name" I wouldn't even be able to live with my wife. Your conception of marriage as a benefit package does far more to hurt the alleged sanctity of marriage than anything any homosexual could ever come up with.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #617

Without these "privileges not worth the name" I wouldn't even be able to live with my wife.

Really? You have police there separating unmarried people who live together?


Your conception of marriage as a benefit package does far more to hurt the alleged sanctity of marriage than anything any homosexual could ever come up with.

How grossly you misunderstand me. Well, not me, but the topic of morality. Well, not the topic of morality, but the way the GBLT camp serves it. You are misunderstanding those whom you are defending.

Because, you see, I was criticising the view of marriage as some kind of benefit package, which is precisely the way the GBLT camp happens to serve it. They say that they are being left out of some privileges, and that they need "equal rights". I was arguing that there are no rights involved, i.e. marriage is not a benefit package. Marriage is not a benefit package because the general population is not behaving as if it were a benefit package. If it were some sort of benefit package, people would hanker for it. But the only slice of population hankering for it is the GBLT camp, a minuscule irrelevant minority, who actually have no sensible use for marriage anyway. They are the only ones who view it as a benefit package that they need as if it were some kind of human right.

Somehow this got lost in translation between you and them. I seriously didn't expect that you were unfamiliar with their point of view.



  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #618
Really? You have police there separating unmarried people who live together?

They're quite proud of it, too. A great number of foreigners were repatriated last year.

Somehow this got lost in translation between you and them. I seriously didn't expect that you were unfamiliar with their point of view.

I don't believe that is their point of view. But I'm glad you don't hold it either.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #619

Somehow this got lost in translation between you and them. I seriously didn't expect that you were unfamiliar with their point of view.

I don't believe that is their point of view. But I'm glad you don't hold it either.

It's not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of reading what they are saying. The quotes are there.

If there's a particular representative of the GBLT camp who you believe is the true representative, feel free to cite that one.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #620
It's not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of reading what they are saying. The quotes are there.

If there's a particular representative of the GBLT camp who you believe is the true representative, feel free to cite that one.

It sounds like you're looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington. If they exist I figure you're probably at least a few decades too late.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #621

It's not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of reading what they are saying. The quotes are there.

If there's a particular representative of the GBLT camp who you believe is the true representative, feel free to cite that one.

It sounds like you're looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington. If they exist I figure you're probably at least a few decades too late.

I see, you are doing it on purpose :) Actually it was you who was looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington when you said "I don't believe that is their point of view," meaning that you believe something else to be their point of view. The only thing now is to be open about what you believe their point of view to be, the same way as I have been open about it.

By the way, a perfect candidate for a homosexual Booker T. Washington is James Baldwin. He lived last century, was most active half a century ago. I encountered his writings in the end of 80's. All this fulfils your "a few decades" criterion. Yes, I am that informed on the topic. One of the main arguments of pro-gay activists is to say that their opponents are uninformed. This is both an insult and patently false, i.e. it's really not an argument.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #622
I see, you are doing it on purpose  :)  Actually it was you who was looking for a homosexual Booker T. Washington when you said "I don't believe that is their point of view," meaning that you believe something else to be their point of view. The only thing now is to be open about what you believe their point of view to be, the same way as I have been open about it.

Their point of view is by and large the same as yours or mine and will diverge primarily to the extent that Dutch and Estonian perspectives on marriage differ. Dutch gay people have had pretty much all or possibly all the boons of marriage for decades through the combination of living together contracts and civil unions, yet they still wanted marriage. I, and almost everyone I know, would still want marriage even if we had all of the boons attached already because it is a symbol of our love, commitment and loyalty to our partner and potential children. It strengthens our relationship, but we also think it's okay if someone else thinks it's just silly symbolism. (Although secretly we might wonder if that isn't just taking the fun out of life.)

PS Washington is an accommodationist pur sang, cf. what was later dubbed the Atlanta compromise. That is the criterion.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #623

Their point of view is by and large the same as yours or mine and will diverge primarily to the extent that Dutch and Estonian perspectives on marriage differ.

Interesting. Where do Dutch and Estonian perspectives on marriage differ? Why do they? How can they?

Meanwhile, anyone who thinks that marriage between some other than husband and wife makes sense does not have the same view as I. Anyone who thinks that legalising same-sex marriages has no substantial impact on the status of marriage as such does not have the same view as I. Anyone who thinks that legalising same-sex marriages is necessary for gays, beneficial for the society in a broader sense, or justifiable in terms of "equal rights" or any rights at all does not have the same view as I.

Marriage is between husband and wife. The purpose is to found a family, to procure offspring and raise the offspring to adulthood. A marriage law without a mention of husband and wife - or with reference to someone else than husband and wife - is as senseless as a family law without a mention of parents or education law without teachers.

Marriage has a certain scope, its natural domain, and cannot be extended beyond that, just like you cannot extend the right of free speech to dogs or issue gun licences to children. If you disagree, then you are mistaken about us having the same point of view.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #624
Of course we don't have the same point of view; that goes without saying. ;)