|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2005 10:20:00 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
I quit smoking to help the enviroment....not really, but it sounds good. Sunday will be one week.
My G/F still smokes, and she can smoke in the house...no prob, but man I am going to be a fat ass if I keep eating like I am ...
/sorta hijacked, I am sorry... :) |
Don't worry. When I quit (almost 9 years ago) I put on some weight too at first, but the following year I shed it back. Your post-smoking increased appetite is not permanent. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:37:19 AM · #127 |
The "Tom LOves Mary" analogy (since nobody else is debunking it) is flawed because:
I come to that deserted beach by water. I will leave that deserted beach by water. It takes no "leap of faith" to deduce that the inscriber of the message did likewise.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:48:13 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The "Tom LOves Mary" analogy (since nobody else is debunking it) is flawed because:
I come to that deserted beach by water. I will leave that deserted beach by water. It takes no "leap of faith" to deduce that the inscriber of the message did likewise.
Robt. |
Excellent observation. You are an intelligent being, capable of creating yourself that which you observe. Therefore, you can "intelligently" infer that what you observe is also the result of intelligence much like unto your own.
Now, observe DNA, perhaps millions of times more complex than the message on the beach, and something that you are INCAPABLE of creating yourself, and tell me that it came about withOUT intelligence far superior to your own.
Message edited by author 2005-02-26 10:53:41. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:57:24 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The "Tom LOves Mary" analogy (since nobody else is debunking it) is flawed because:
I come to that deserted beach by water. I will leave that deserted beach by water. It takes no "leap of faith" to deduce that the inscriber of the message did likewise.
Robt. |
Excellent observation. You are an intelligent being, capable of creating yourself that which you observe. Therefore, you can "intelligently" infer that what you observe is also the result of intelligence much like unto your own.
Now, observe DNA, perhaps millions of times more complex than the message on the beach, and tell me that it came about withOUT intelligence. |
I won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole. It's one of the most pervasive arguments for a "creator", and perhaps the most difficult to refute. It's the "watchmaker" argument; it is impossible to look at the workings of a watch and NOT assume an intelligent fabricator of the watch.
However, the "Ron Loves Mary" analogy is flawed at a deeper level. To wit, one can posit an Amazonian primitive discovering a pocket watch, opening it up, and deducing (if that's the right word for a primitive thought process) that it was created by "the Gods". And this, of course, would be wrong. But it's not reasonable to assume that any human being, coming to a deserted beach and seeing no evidence of prior visits, would fail to come to the conclusion that "intelligent" markings in the sand were produced by a now-absent visitor.
In any event, belief in a "creator" and belief in "evolution" are not mutually exclusive.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 11:52:00 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The "Tom LOves Mary" analogy (since nobody else is debunking it) is flawed because:
I come to that deserted beach by water. I will leave that deserted beach by water. It takes no "leap of faith" to deduce that the inscriber of the message did likewise.
Robt. |
Excellent observation. You are an intelligent being, capable of creating yourself that which you observe. Therefore, you can "intelligently" infer that what you observe is also the result of intelligence much like unto your own.
Now, observe DNA, perhaps millions of times more complex than the message on the beach, and tell me that it came about withOUT intelligence. |
I won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole. It's one of the most pervasive arguments for a "creator", and perhaps the most difficult to refute. It's the "watchmaker" argument; it is impossible to look at the workings of a watch and NOT assume an intelligent fabricator of the watch.
However, the "Ron Loves Mary" analogy is flawed at a deeper level. To wit, one can posit an Amazonian primitive discovering a pocket watch, opening it up, and deducing (if that's the right word for a primitive thought process) that it was created by "the Gods". And this, of course, would be wrong. But it's not reasonable to assume that any human being, coming to a deserted beach and seeing no evidence of prior visits, would fail to come to the conclusion that "intelligent" markings in the sand were produced by a now-absent visitor.
In any event, belief in a "creator" and belief in "evolution" are not mutually exclusive.
Robt. |
For Micro-evolution, I agree. For Macro-evolution, I don't.
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 12:06:25 PM · #131 |
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 12:17:35 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
But the primitive would be wrong; it was only a higher intelligence that created that watch, not God.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 12:26:31 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Btw, the reason more scientists and professors are liberal is because they are smarter and more educated than normal men. |
What about the women? :)
Being a "scientist" I'd have to say most of my co-scientist are not liberal. Most scientist that study the environment might be liberal, and I'd say that is probably because the conservative scientists tend to go into fields that are more profitable :)
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 01:04:49 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
So logically I would assume the watch being made by a more intelligent being I should assume that DNA was also made by a more intelligent being, again not God. As I was taught God is omnipotent well outside the need of any intelligence. He did not go to school or get degrees in the creation of the universe. If he is just another intelligent being (more than us by any % you want to make him) then I would assume he loses his Godhood. He would just be another very smart guy that has a lot of people fooled. I am not arguing against the concept of God just this specious âTom and Maryâ analogy. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 02:05:00 PM · #135 |
I think there is a big difference between manmade or complex materials coming together randomly and those of natural substances coming together. DNA, while a complex natural substance, are made up of amino acids, and not that many. Four, to be exact. It's not such a far reaching concept that 4 amino acids come together randomly and get "activated" by other environmental factors/forces, that may not have anything to do with any intended intelligence. The simpler life forms from which humans come, if you believe in evolution, this would have not been such a far cry.
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
So logically I would assume the watch being made by a more intelligent being I should assume that DNA was also made by a more intelligent being, again not God. As I was taught God is omnipotent well outside the need of any intelligence. He did not go to school or get degrees in the creation of the universe. If he is just another intelligent being (more than us by any % you want to make him) then I would assume he loses his Godhood. He would just be another very smart guy that has a lot of people fooled. I am not arguing against the concept of God just this specious âTom and Maryâ analogy. |
Message edited by author 2005-02-26 14:06:24. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 02:20:22 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
But the primitive would be wrong; it was only a higher intelligence that created that watch, not God. |
Precisely...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 02:21:09 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
So logically I would assume the watch being made by a more intelligent being I should assume that DNA was also made by a more intelligent being, again not God. As I was taught God is omnipotent well outside the need of any intelligence. He did not go to school or get degrees in the creation of the universe. If he is just another intelligent being (more than us by any % you want to make him) then I would assume he loses his Godhood. He would just be another very smart guy that has a lot of people fooled. I am not arguing against the concept of God just this specious âTom and Maryâ analogy. |
As much as I would prefer acceptance of God as Creator, I can offer no proof that He exists, let alone that He was Creator. Recognizing this, I am left only to offer evidence refuting the argument made in support of the alternative theory of macro-evolution ( and it is just that, a theory ). For purposes of my argument I would side with those who attribute creation to "just another intelligent being". Even a belief that we were created by aliens from outer space is exceedingly more logical than believing that we evolved from some chance meeting of amino acids in a swamp. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 02:35:59 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
But the primitive would be wrong; it was only a higher intelligence that created that watch, not God. |
It is YOU who brought God into the argument, not me. I have consistently used the term "intelligent design". It is YOUR argument that the Amazonian primitives would attribute the watch as having been created by "the Gods", and if anything, I erred in responding to your post using your own terms. In fact, the Amazonian primitives would not credit creation of a watch to "the gods". Rather they would marvel at it's complexity and credit its creation to "intelligent design", perhaps by some outside tribe that was more advanced than they. Having a rudimentary knowledge of wheels, and springs ( bent tree saplings used in animal traps, etc. ) they would be quite capable of grasping the workings of the watch given a little time, even if they did not have the least understanding of its purpose.
I did quite a bit of "googling" to see if any primitive tribes ascribed anything that was extra-natural to "gods" and could find no references whatsoever. I am led to believe, therefore, that a watch would not be attributed to "the gods".
It follows then, that rather than crediting the watch to "the gods", they would credit it to other "intelligent beings", and in this regard, they would be 100% correct. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 04:51:07 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
But the primitive would be wrong; it was only a higher intelligence that created that watch, not God. |
It is YOU who brought God into the argument, not me. I have consistently used the term "intelligent design". It is YOUR argument that the Amazonian primitives would attribute the watch as having been created by "the Gods", and if anything, I erred in responding to your post using your own terms. In fact, the Amazonian primitives would not credit creation of a watch to "the gods". Rather they would marvel at it's complexity and credit its creation to "intelligent design", perhaps by some outside tribe that was more advanced than they. Having a rudimentary knowledge of wheels, and springs ( bent tree saplings used in animal traps, etc. ) they would be quite capable of grasping the workings of the watch given a little time, even if they did not have the least understanding of its purpose.
I did quite a bit of "googling" to see if any primitive tribes ascribed anything that was extra-natural to "gods" and could find no references whatsoever. I am led to believe, therefore, that a watch would not be attributed to "the gods".
It follows then, that rather than crediting the watch to "the gods", they would credit it to other "intelligent beings", and in this regard, they would be 100% correct. |
So in other words some intelligent beings from somewhere created (made) us? They also had to be made I would suppose? It started somewhere? If there is this Intelligent Design then I would suppose something made it intelligent? It just happened like DNA from the primordial soup. Intelligent Design just popped out of thin air I suppose. Now that seems like a stretch to me. I think you have to make a choice; God or evolution, anything else is trying to have it both ways and is obfuscation. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 04:52:06 PM · #140 |
| There is a third choice, you just do not know. Join the club. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 05:01:07 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
There is a third choice, you just do not know. Join the club. |
I prefer to call it, having an open mind. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 06:20:55 PM · #142 |
so, if god made us, then who made god? seems like a stretch to me that "god just is" just like it seems like a stretch to some that "evolution happens"
and do you think god would like us to pollute?
Message edited by author 2005-02-26 18:38:14. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 07:01:53 PM · #143 |
I would think that god (if one believes in Her), that She would like us NOT to pollute. That She would like us to preserve the very special gift of nature and life that She has given us.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
so, if god made us, then who made god? seems like a stretch to me that "god just is" just like it seems like a stretch to some that "evolution happens"
and do you think god would like us to pollute? |
Message edited by author 2005-02-26 19:03:11. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:10:05 PM · #144 |
Boy, is this thread fun. We are now seeking the first cause. Did you know that these are the arguments that 17-20 years get into and often spent the night and watch the breaking sun rise. All exhausted, they go home and crash and then grow old with no clear cut difference than when they started.
Well, rest assures that this topic is as old as the hill and many cultures have devised states of beliefs to accomodate the web it creates. there is no way out.
The truth of the matter is that to go here means to enter the metaphysical. What indeed fools us is this little thing called awareness. This phenomena of being cognizant. So here is an interesting one presented by another culture.
The Indians call it Maya. This expresses that all is merely an illusion. A very strong argument and think carefully because it has been well formulated. This follows that nothing exists but this dream we call life. I love it.
Of course the ancients spent much time searching for the first cause. We suffer from our own minute experience. This was the name attributed to the first cause: God. As Ron points out there could be a God and evolution. It also follows that there can be a God and no religion.
We are small tiny creatures with big highly over inflated heads. We tend to want to control and herein lies our biggest problem. Some of us seek physical control while the more advanced seek emotional control of others. Everything we do is tarnished by these imperfections. If we do not examine our hearts we will even begin to believe that we are infallible. Some of us believe that we are not responsible to anything or anybody. These are the know it alls. They do not even allow a placeholder for a God. They are Gods. Think of any crazy perversity and you find a human that entertains it.
So you see, it is the above frail conceited creature that attempts to seek a first cause or its origin. Through it all there is very little pause to examine the miracle of consciouness. Soon, it becomes like the eye looking at itself. That is, can the eye see itself? Not the physical eye, but that which looks behind the eye.
Such deep thoughts then lead to other intriguing subjects such as destiny. Man, this thread can wind away and twist and turn in the wind.
When you travel east, you are told to drop the nonsense of self importance and strip yourself naked and simply count your breathing over and over again until you make contact with your higher self. Otherwise, your existence while enjoyable has no depth since one remains lost in the experience of the superficial life wherein intelligence never rises to wisdom.
Message edited by author 2005-02-26 22:13:48. |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:21:19 PM · #145 |
Ron,
Look up "Cargo Cult".. And that's 20th century, no less....
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:30:15 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
We tend to want to control and herein lies our biggest problem. Some of us seek physical control while the more advanced seek emotional control of others. |
Yes, interesting thought. While I think it can be fun to speculate on the existence (or not) of God and related matters, why is it of such desperate importance to some to convince others that God does (or does not) exist? |
|
|
|
02/26/2005 10:42:16 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
But the primitive would be wrong; it was only a higher intelligence that created that watch, not God. |
It is YOU who brought God into the argument, not me. I have consistently used the term "intelligent design". It is YOUR argument that the Amazonian primitives would attribute the watch as having been created by "the Gods", and if anything, I erred in responding to your post using your own terms. In fact, the Amazonian primitives would not credit creation of a watch to "the gods". Rather they would marvel at it's complexity and credit its creation to "intelligent design", perhaps by some outside tribe that was more advanced than they. Having a rudimentary knowledge of wheels, and springs ( bent tree saplings used in animal traps, etc. ) they would be quite capable of grasping the workings of the watch given a little time, even if they did not have the least understanding of its purpose.
I did quite a bit of "googling" to see if any primitive tribes ascribed anything that was extra-natural to "gods" and could find no references whatsoever. I am led to believe, therefore, that a watch would not be attributed to "the gods".
It follows then, that rather than crediting the watch to "the gods", they would credit it to other "intelligent beings", and in this regard, they would be 100% correct. |
So in other words some intelligent beings from somewhere created (made) us? They also had to be made I would suppose? It started somewhere? If there is this Intelligent Design then I would suppose something made it intelligent? It just happened like DNA from the primordial soup. Intelligent Design just popped out of thin air I suppose. Now that seems like a stretch to me. I think you have to make a choice; God or evolution, anything else is trying to have it both ways and is obfuscation. |
Why, it's turtles all the way down, silly.
link
By the way, my choice is God. And you really limit yourself if you cannot comprehend that though WE operate in a time-space continuum, God, who created it to begin with, is not - that is God exists outside of time ( e.g. He is eternal by our measurementst ).
Look at it this way. see here
1) Einsteins theory of relativity postulates that as the velocity of an observer increases, time decreases or slows. Physicists agree, since this is a measurable phenomenon.
2) Physicists are also in agreement that nothing in nature can exceed the speed of light
3) From numbers 1 and 2, physicists agree that when velocity reaches the speed of light, time ceases.
4) An extremely interesting phenomenon ( and a scientific puzzle ) is that relative to the observer, every OTHER measurable thing ( bullets, sound, etc. ) changes speed in direct proportion to the speed of the origininating source toward or away from the observer or the speed of the observer relative to the originating object. Yet, in a vacuum, light does NOT vary regardless of the speed of the observer toward or away from the source.
5) Scripture says that God IS light. Couple that with all of the above and you will understand ( if you are willing ) that since God IS light, with God, time does not exist. Therefore, He could have take millions of earth years ( as we measure them ) to design the perfect universe and all the species on earth ( as we know them ), then constructed/implemented everything in just seven 'earth' days, AND set it up in such a way that we could already observe "history" as we believe it to exist.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2005 12:11:16 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But humans have mapped the human genome and have begun to understand and manipulate its workings (not that I agree with this). Bioinformatics and other technologies are advancing to the point where mankind will be "playing god." The greatest intelligence happens at its most simple level and that "intelligence" may have come about by purely random means.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the Amazonian primitive, anything which is of a complexity that is so obviously beyond their ability to produce, or completely comprehend, is from the gods" - that put's him/her an intellectual step above those who believe that DNA materialized on its own in some primordial swamp. |
|
But the primitive would be wrong; it was only a higher intelligence that created that watch, not God. |
It is YOU who brought God into the argument, not me. I have consistently used the term "intelligent design". It is YOUR argument that the Amazonian primitives would attribute the watch as having been created by "the Gods", and if anything, I erred in responding to your post using your own terms. In fact, the Amazonian primitives would not credit creation of a watch to "the gods". Rather they would marvel at it's complexity and credit its creation to "intelligent design", perhaps by some outside tribe that was more advanced than they. Having a rudimentary knowledge of wheels, and springs ( bent tree saplings used in animal traps, etc. ) they would be quite capable of grasping the workings of the watch given a little time, even if they did not have the least understanding of its purpose.
I did quite a bit of "googling" to see if any primitive tribes ascribed anything that was extra-natural to "gods" and could find no references whatsoever. I am led to believe, therefore, that a watch would not be attributed to "the gods".
It follows then, that rather than crediting the watch to "the gods", they would credit it to other "intelligent beings", and in this regard, they would be 100% correct. |
So in other words some intelligent beings from somewhere created (made) us? They also had to be made I would suppose? It started somewhere? If there is this Intelligent Design then I would suppose something made it intelligent? It just happened like DNA from the primordial soup. Intelligent Design just popped out of thin air I suppose. Now that seems like a stretch to me. I think you have to make a choice; God or evolution, anything else is trying to have it both ways and is obfuscation. |
Why, it's turtles all the way down, silly.
link
By the way, my choice is God. And you really limit yourself if you cannot comprehend that though WE operate in a time-space continuum, God, who created it to begin with, is not - that is God exists outside of time ( e.g. He is eternal by our measurementst ).
Look at it this way. see here
1) Einsteins theory of relativity postulates that as the velocity of an observer increases, time decreases or slows. Physicists agree, since this is a measurable phenomenon.
2) Physicists are also in agreement that nothing in nature can exceed the speed of light
3) From numbers 1 and 2, physicists agree that when velocity reaches the speed of light, time ceases.
4) An extremely interesting phenomenon ( and a scientific puzzle ) is that relative to the observer, every OTHER measurable thing ( bullets, sound, etc. ) changes speed in direct proportion to the speed of the origininating source toward or away from the observer or the speed of the observer relative to the originating object. Yet, in a vacuum, light does NOT vary regardless of the speed of the observer toward or away from the source.
5) Scripture says that God IS light. Couple that with all of the above and you will understand ( if you are willing ) that since God IS light, with God, time does not exist. Therefore, He could have take millions of earth years ( as we measure them ) to design the perfect universe and all the species on earth ( as we know them ), then constructed/implemented everything in just seven 'earth' days, AND set it up in such a way that we could already observe "history" as we believe it to exist. |
I knew Ron that you believed in God and I respect you for that. For me it would take a leap of faith I do not have in me to make that assumption. I grew up in a world of cynical thinking. Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see; is my faith. Also you are a conservative as I, and I think you get your conservative leanings from your faith. It makes you a well rounded person in relation to your world view. I respect that.
I know about the turtleâs sillyâ¦
What I have a problem with is this new found belief almost a religion that man is God. That we create the world in our image. That WE are the one and only being made from (whatever means you (not you Ron) chouse, be it primordial soup or evolution or whatever). These people use any excuse to gain power and use their intellectual prowess to subjugate the rest of us. They come in the guise of do-gooders and they will save us from ourselves if it kills us. They will save the environment at any cost. They invent illusionary threats that we have to fight. Global warming is a perfect tool to use. Who wants to hurt the world? It is an argument that if you argue against it you must not care about the Earth. You are a traitor to life on Earth.
A famous person once said âIt is all right to lie as long as the result is good.) And I would ask âGood for whom?â
|
|
|
|
02/27/2005 08:36:19 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
We tend to want to control and herein lies our biggest problem. Some of us seek physical control while the more advanced seek emotional control of others. |
Yes, interesting thought. While I think it can be fun to speculate on the existence (or not) of God and related matters, why is it of such desperate importance to some to convince others that God does (or does not) exist? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are slaves to our egos. The ego is the identity point of consciousness. It has a very frail constitution and a tendency to inflate or grow extrenely Ying. It is hard to curtail because the capacity to see itself is a difficult process to achieve known as self realization or enlightenment.
The more inflated the ego is the less room it has to consider a first cause or a God. The inflated ego sees nothing above it.
The first steps in self realization lead to the agnostics or those who just do not know.
Enlightenment leads to the belief of a creator.
Now, not all humans must be enlighten to believe. It is merely the constitution of the ego. The inflated ego needs self search because it is lost in its supposed vastness. The more humble of heart at once see the results or works of the creator.
At the two extremes you have the true believers, those that believe in an idea or concept without undestanding why, and the non believers, these are mostly people with no country and no god, merely a carbon makeup in the face of the earth. Both of these group seek to control others with their ideas and beliefs. The true believers want to convert and the non believers want to negate the existence of anything supernatural or fidelity to anything.
All of it has nothing to do with intelligence or its lack. The vehicle with the most force is the ego. The ego's control is an almost absolute and determines easily who we are.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2005 09:18:35 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Enlightenment leads to the belief of a creator.
|
ROTFLOL |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/24/2025 04:36:46 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/24/2025 04:36:46 AM EDT.
|
