Monday, March 30, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Richard Dawkins' letter to his ten year old daughter:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/richard_dawkins_letter_to_his_10_year_old_daughter_how_to_warn_your_child_about_this_irrational_world
Friday, March 13, 2009
excerpts from Steven Dutch's article : Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?
it's a fantastic article, i'll post my favorite paragraphs but here's the whole thing:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyAntiInt.htm
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
But the view that we all start out curious and creative, and have those qualities systematically stifled, fails to address some core questions. Why should it be possible to stifle these qualities at all? If there are people who see benefit from stifling curiosity and creativity, why should those benefits outweigh the benefits of encouraging curiosity and creativity? And assuming that there are people with a vested interest in stifling curiosity and creativity, why should they be able to prevail over those members of society who value curiosity and creativity? If curiosity and creativity are general traits of human beings, anti-intellectualism should be a rare and aberrant phenomenon. It should be regarded as a variety of mental retardation, or a condition as undesirable as impotence. The only possible conclusion is that there is something fundamentally wrong with this model of human nature.
I recently got an issue of an education association magazine that had an article on whether reward systems work in education. The subtitle of the article was "Should Learning Be Its Own Reward? I thought the article missed the central point: why isn't learning a sufficient reward? You don't have to offer people incentives to have sex, or eat strawberry shortcake, or go to Disneyland. For most people those activities are their own reward. Why isn't learning in the same class?
It is useful, however, to distinguish between tinkering and creativity. Tinkering consists of exploring relatively minor variations on known themes, or subjecting new stimuli to an array of already known techniques. Thomas Kinkade rarely creates and mostly tinkers. Babies tinker constantly. They put every new object in their mouth. Eventually they figure out that most things are not good to eat. When they develop motor control, they throw things. Serious curiosity consists of actively seeking new kinds of stimuli. Creativity consists of juxtaposing objects and ideas in new ways, and having a sound intuition for separating the significant result from the trivial.
The stories of Pandora's Box in Greek mythology and the Garden of Eden in the Bible both contain the message that all the problems of the world were brought about by curiosity. Indeed, as Jared Diamond makes clear, the transition from hunter-gatherer to settled farmer carried with it a host of trade-offs, not all of them beneficial from everyone's viewpoint. I have long suspected that these myths may reflect a tradition of that transition, with a longing for the carefree days before complex civilization. People on the fringes of civilization, in particular, might well have seen the transition in a single lifetime as they were displaced, absorbed or conquered by their more advanced neighbors, and may have preserved the memory in myth.
Curiosity and creativity collide headlong with another trait deeply rooted in biology, the desire to minimize effort and expenditure of energy. Curiosity and creativity probably evolved as offshoots of play, an almost wholly mammalian trait that serves to train young mammals in essential complex survival skills. Curiosity serves a natural function by leading young animals to become acquainted with the full diversity of their environment. But even in species whose young are noted for playfulness and inquisitiveness, adults do not exhibit the same level or kind of play. They don't need to - they have already learned their environment, and play both takes energy and may distract them from necessary vigilance. So we should probably expect curiosity to decline as humans get older, just in the natural order of things. It's ridiculous to expect adults to grow physically at the same rate as babies, and probably as silly to expect them to grow intellectually at the same rate.
Unsatisfied curiosity is nagging, and there is a sense of comfort and relief when it's satisfied. Carl Sagan related how dissatisfied people were when he answered that he did not know whether there were extraterrestrial civilizations. People kept pressing him "But what do you think?" The ability to accept uncertainty requires extraordinary intellectual discipline. Medieval maps were full of spurious details simply because their makers couldn't tolerate blank spaces. There is abundant evidence that most people prefer the appearance of immediate certainty to the existence of uncertainty, even if uncertainty carries with it the certainty of getting closer to the truth later. Many people prefer religions that promise theological certainty, even if based on demonstrably spurious reasoning, rather than a religion that reasons soundly but accepts uncertainty or ambiguity. Having acquired a feeling of certainty, people naturally resist any attempt to re-open inquiry, because it will require effort and because it will subject them anew to that nagging feeling of uncertainty.
One last point. In a world where the best you can hope for is survival and maybe a little comfort, any change is almost certainly bound to be for the worse. Anyone growing up in such a world will develop a strong belief in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The notion that change is desirable and beneficial is a very recent one born of our technological mastery of nature.
Some readers might object that judging children or primitive cultures by modern, adult standards is fundamentally unfair. But if we are going to compare children to adults, or ancient societies to modern ones, the only comparisons that make any sense are on a common scale. Golfers can somewhat compensate for differences in ability by applying handicaps and allow weaker hitters to tee off closer to the pin, but a match between Tiger Woods and a rank beginner would be a total blowout, and a handicap system that equalized the two players would yield a meaningless result. Similarly, letting a child have a 25-mile head start in a marathon might yield a close result, but what meaning would it have?
I've heard people claim they have never seen a child who wasn't curious and couldn't be motivated to learn. They're probably telling the truth, but for one of the following reasons:
They fail to distinguish between tinkering and real curiosity and creativity. All children are tinkerers; it does not follow that all can or will develop curiosity and creativity in any profound sense.
They've never seen a child who failed to respond to the right motivation. Maybe. Some people have had their curiosity kindled by the most random and unpredictable stimuli. But then we have the question, at what point does it become unjust to society to pour resources onto a few people? If our efforts to stimulate one child consume resources that would enable five others to fulfill their creativity, is that just or wise? Is it even productive, or does the constant attempt to find the right stimulus merely foster the expectation that education should be entertainment and actually discourage the growth of curiosity? Doesn't the student have a real obligation to attempt to develop an interest in new subjects?
They may have worked in restricted or self-selected settings.
Some people are so ideologically locked to their beliefs that they simply cannot (more likely will not) see contradictory evidence. They simply deny or explain away any anomalies.
Conclusions
Humans are innately curious, but it is mostly a low order curiosity concerned with immediate gratification of a particular desire to know, and mostly oriented toward immediate practical results.
There is no persuasive evidence that any societies have ever had a high proportion of people who were deeply curious in a systematic, disciplined way.
The curiosity and creativity of children is very superficial.
Our own culture supports systematic and disciplined inquiry better than just about any other in history, but even so there is a great deal of hostility toward it by people who feel their values threatened, see it as a waste of time that could be better devoted to more immediate goals, or resent the status and power it carries.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyAntiInt.htm
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
But the view that we all start out curious and creative, and have those qualities systematically stifled, fails to address some core questions. Why should it be possible to stifle these qualities at all? If there are people who see benefit from stifling curiosity and creativity, why should those benefits outweigh the benefits of encouraging curiosity and creativity? And assuming that there are people with a vested interest in stifling curiosity and creativity, why should they be able to prevail over those members of society who value curiosity and creativity? If curiosity and creativity are general traits of human beings, anti-intellectualism should be a rare and aberrant phenomenon. It should be regarded as a variety of mental retardation, or a condition as undesirable as impotence. The only possible conclusion is that there is something fundamentally wrong with this model of human nature.
I recently got an issue of an education association magazine that had an article on whether reward systems work in education. The subtitle of the article was "Should Learning Be Its Own Reward? I thought the article missed the central point: why isn't learning a sufficient reward? You don't have to offer people incentives to have sex, or eat strawberry shortcake, or go to Disneyland. For most people those activities are their own reward. Why isn't learning in the same class?
It is useful, however, to distinguish between tinkering and creativity. Tinkering consists of exploring relatively minor variations on known themes, or subjecting new stimuli to an array of already known techniques. Thomas Kinkade rarely creates and mostly tinkers. Babies tinker constantly. They put every new object in their mouth. Eventually they figure out that most things are not good to eat. When they develop motor control, they throw things. Serious curiosity consists of actively seeking new kinds of stimuli. Creativity consists of juxtaposing objects and ideas in new ways, and having a sound intuition for separating the significant result from the trivial.
The stories of Pandora's Box in Greek mythology and the Garden of Eden in the Bible both contain the message that all the problems of the world were brought about by curiosity. Indeed, as Jared Diamond makes clear, the transition from hunter-gatherer to settled farmer carried with it a host of trade-offs, not all of them beneficial from everyone's viewpoint. I have long suspected that these myths may reflect a tradition of that transition, with a longing for the carefree days before complex civilization. People on the fringes of civilization, in particular, might well have seen the transition in a single lifetime as they were displaced, absorbed or conquered by their more advanced neighbors, and may have preserved the memory in myth.
Curiosity and creativity collide headlong with another trait deeply rooted in biology, the desire to minimize effort and expenditure of energy. Curiosity and creativity probably evolved as offshoots of play, an almost wholly mammalian trait that serves to train young mammals in essential complex survival skills. Curiosity serves a natural function by leading young animals to become acquainted with the full diversity of their environment. But even in species whose young are noted for playfulness and inquisitiveness, adults do not exhibit the same level or kind of play. They don't need to - they have already learned their environment, and play both takes energy and may distract them from necessary vigilance. So we should probably expect curiosity to decline as humans get older, just in the natural order of things. It's ridiculous to expect adults to grow physically at the same rate as babies, and probably as silly to expect them to grow intellectually at the same rate.
Unsatisfied curiosity is nagging, and there is a sense of comfort and relief when it's satisfied. Carl Sagan related how dissatisfied people were when he answered that he did not know whether there were extraterrestrial civilizations. People kept pressing him "But what do you think?" The ability to accept uncertainty requires extraordinary intellectual discipline. Medieval maps were full of spurious details simply because their makers couldn't tolerate blank spaces. There is abundant evidence that most people prefer the appearance of immediate certainty to the existence of uncertainty, even if uncertainty carries with it the certainty of getting closer to the truth later. Many people prefer religions that promise theological certainty, even if based on demonstrably spurious reasoning, rather than a religion that reasons soundly but accepts uncertainty or ambiguity. Having acquired a feeling of certainty, people naturally resist any attempt to re-open inquiry, because it will require effort and because it will subject them anew to that nagging feeling of uncertainty.
One last point. In a world where the best you can hope for is survival and maybe a little comfort, any change is almost certainly bound to be for the worse. Anyone growing up in such a world will develop a strong belief in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The notion that change is desirable and beneficial is a very recent one born of our technological mastery of nature.
Some readers might object that judging children or primitive cultures by modern, adult standards is fundamentally unfair. But if we are going to compare children to adults, or ancient societies to modern ones, the only comparisons that make any sense are on a common scale. Golfers can somewhat compensate for differences in ability by applying handicaps and allow weaker hitters to tee off closer to the pin, but a match between Tiger Woods and a rank beginner would be a total blowout, and a handicap system that equalized the two players would yield a meaningless result. Similarly, letting a child have a 25-mile head start in a marathon might yield a close result, but what meaning would it have?
I've heard people claim they have never seen a child who wasn't curious and couldn't be motivated to learn. They're probably telling the truth, but for one of the following reasons:
They fail to distinguish between tinkering and real curiosity and creativity. All children are tinkerers; it does not follow that all can or will develop curiosity and creativity in any profound sense.
They've never seen a child who failed to respond to the right motivation. Maybe. Some people have had their curiosity kindled by the most random and unpredictable stimuli. But then we have the question, at what point does it become unjust to society to pour resources onto a few people? If our efforts to stimulate one child consume resources that would enable five others to fulfill their creativity, is that just or wise? Is it even productive, or does the constant attempt to find the right stimulus merely foster the expectation that education should be entertainment and actually discourage the growth of curiosity? Doesn't the student have a real obligation to attempt to develop an interest in new subjects?
They may have worked in restricted or self-selected settings.
Some people are so ideologically locked to their beliefs that they simply cannot (more likely will not) see contradictory evidence. They simply deny or explain away any anomalies.
Conclusions
Humans are innately curious, but it is mostly a low order curiosity concerned with immediate gratification of a particular desire to know, and mostly oriented toward immediate practical results.
There is no persuasive evidence that any societies have ever had a high proportion of people who were deeply curious in a systematic, disciplined way.
The curiosity and creativity of children is very superficial.
Our own culture supports systematic and disciplined inquiry better than just about any other in history, but even so there is a great deal of hostility toward it by people who feel their values threatened, see it as a waste of time that could be better devoted to more immediate goals, or resent the status and power it carries.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
newfound respect for The West Wing
maybe i'm on an anit-dogma kick as of late, maybe especially towards christian dogma because of the forum i was kicked off of, but here is a clip from the west wing t.v. show that i enjoyed thoroughly:
many posts i made on a fundamentalist forum, before they kicked me and deleted my posts.
i joined this fundamentalist forum to discuss views, but many of my posts were deleted as soon as they were put up. i was quite polite but after about a week the admin (bibleprobe) kicked me off the forum, referring to atheism (in reference to what he deemed my beliefs) and other religions like free-masonry and islam as "cancer". here's the site, keep in mind that anything that gets posted that is too much of a glaring irrefutability gets instantly deleted by bibleprobe, he explains why in his atheist "cancer" post: http://prorege-forum.com/forum.php
here are my posts (the one's that survived bibleprobe anyway)
Bibleprobe’s bane.
almost all of the posts i put on the forum were saved and are below, a couple were taken off the site as soon as ol' prober sawit. anyway, the website
http://prorege-forum.com/forum.php)
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
putting the responsibility of homeland security on god takes the responsibility out of the hands of those who should be defending the state. btw, no terrorist is going to bother with kentucky anyway.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
there are several misconceptions that seem to have led you to the claim that buddha had a prophecy about christ. this is quite wrong but i can see, based on your cited source, how you could have made this mistake. let's clear up a few things: firstly, you'll notice i made no mention of buddhism. this is because it is not a deistic religion, it makes no claims of any sort of spiritual or metaphysical beings as most religions do. the buddha, all the buddhas, were mortal humans. you are referring to the texts found in northern thailand from the pali canon of theravada buddhism, an orally transferred canon until it was finally written into text in the first century b.c.e., and it's supposed prophecy of maitreya (in sanskrit), or metteyya (in its original pali). this was not a prophecy from the original buddha but a scripture written and changed later, hundreds of years after the buddha. it differs from nearly all the original buddha's teachings in that it begins and ends with discussion with other monks on an entirely different subject, while the buddha's other sermons are preached in answer to a question. and of course there's the blatant time gap making it an impossibility. buddhism to date has not officially recognized any being as the incarnation of maitreya/metteyya, though the most popular and widely regarded visage of this being budai hotei, or the laughing buddha, who's statue we all know so well. many religions claim that their leader or prophet is metteyya incarnate. islam claims it is muhammad, since he is the last and most recent of acknowledged religious prophets. l. ron hubbard (the founder of scientology) claimed he was metteyya incarnate. and of course, as you've just said and shown with your inaccurate book source from your post, that jesus was metteyya incarnate. there are several standards, according to the prophecy, that must be in effect for metteyya to come into the world: his mother must die when he is seven days old, he must be uncircumcised, he must be born in india, he will come to be when human lifespan is back to around (approximately) 80,000 years (this is buddhist lore), and the teachings and practices of buddhism must no longer exist on earth, they must be long forgotten by all before metteyya can exist. christ doesn't fit any of those categories (except for maybe the uncircumcised part ( i don't know, is that one mentioned in the bible?), clearly we are not living anywhere near that long and obviously buddhism is taught and practiced widely still today. also heaven and nirvana are completely different concepts. nirvana is nothingness, escape from the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and suffering (dukkha), while heaven is quite a different animal, what with the dichotic parallel of hell, and god, and divine infallibility and everything else. quite different indeed. the book you've cited used the a source from thailand, the geographic location of the pali canon, but a place quite far from where the buddha would have existed or taught. we see this because it took some 400 years of oral transference from the time and place of the buddha to the time and place the pali canon was canonized. 400 years for the word of mouth to distort what the buddha might have actually said, if the buddha even said anything on the matter at all (and historical evidence suggests he did not, that is was written by the fourth buddhist council in 100 b.c.e. so you see, you've posted and cited a book that uses vague and highly refutable textual support. this is further distorted by the obvious bias the author of said book towards christianity. at the bottom of the scanned pages of this book it says this, under the new category of christianity (right after the category on buddhism, which was dedicated entirely the christ/metteyya connection, and therefore was more about christianity than buddhism) and i quote:"none of these ways, but one, has god said will fix the human sin problem". now that is all well and good, he has every right to write this and believe this, but it clearly reveals a bias that cannot uphold a reasonable claim of christ as metteyya.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
stop with the false insinuations about atheistic views bibleprobe. there is no common belief held by atheists other than the denunciation of a deity of any sort. we do not stare at existence as "nothingness" or a "black-hole" these are, quite frankly, stupid assumptions based on nothing more than ignorance and unwillingness to learn outside your personal bias and archaic doctrines. alright, so i could go on an endless diatribe about how you can't use the bible to prove the bible, this is self-refutation and therefore void within the boundaries of reason and pragmatism. but i know that you will then provide more self-refuting evidence about jesus fulfilling his prophecies and bible quotes and so on, ad infinitum because the entire argument for christianity lies in self-refuting doctrine, as with all religion. so, disregard that last paragraph completely if you wish, because here is what i'm going to do: for the sake of conversation, let us now say that i believe you can use the bible as it's own proof, that through jesus, the prophet as evidenced in the scripture, by the miracles and words of god in the bible, you can and are upholding a viable source for a case for your beliefs. to put it boldly: i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. so, i'm assuming that you believe the bible is the infallible, irrefutable word of god, yes? and in this, the old testament, the tanakh, is therefore also the infallible, irrefutable word of god. let me know if this is wrong. so, i've given you the benefit of the doubt, your belief in the infallible, ultimate destiny of humanity lies in the scripture of the bible is not being refuted by me. but what about hinduism? zorastrianism? taoism? islam?(an abrahamic religion with the prophet concept, just like christianity and judaism). all of these (except islam) existed before christianity, and present the exact same methods of supporting their claims as christianity, some of these with even more religious documentation than christianity. why, if i've accepted your claims about your god, your book and your prophet, should i discount any other religion? especially the ones that provide more documents backing their beliefs? what makes christianity the exception? if it is allowed that christianity is supported in it's claims by it's own self-refuting documents then we must allow this support for all religions that attempt to prove themselves thusly. show me how christianity is the clear "correct choice". keep in mind that i can counter any claims of exclusive divine right or infallibility in christian text with quotes from another religion claiming the exact same thing. show me something that goes beyond the claim that every religion makes and tries to prove with it's own documents.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
bibleprobe will probably delete this post, because it challenges his/her beliefs. don't be a hater, bibleprobe. WWJD? so my new thread, asking people to show their certainty and/or knowledge of god's existence, was deleted because the admin. thought it was "atheist nonsense", and apparently all atheist nonsense, regardless of topic, must be quarantined to one thread. i am forced to intrude on your thread, rawrgor, i apologize. so i posted the quesion: are you %100 certain of god's existence, explain your knowledge about this certainty, and ray responded with this phrase, almost exactly "show me your %100 certainty that god does not exist." here is my response (and btw, bibleprobe, i challenge you to answer this, if you delete it then it only solidifies my side of the argument because it shows your refusal and unwillingness to make known your certainty of god's existence) i feel that i shouldn't have to say this, but it seems necessary: i mean no offense to anyone, i am simply stating my beliefs as everyone on this forum is and i apologize if you are offended, it is never my intention, if there is something on here that offends please TALK TO ME instead of deleting the post. anyway, my response to ray's response: ray you just made my day. to answer your question, no. i do not know for absolute certain god exists, nor do i know for absolute certain that god does not exist. i am an agnostic atheist because, while i ascertain that anything is possible simply because we do not know everything (and probably never will), the existence of god is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely and therefore i do not believe in god. as i mentioned in a previous post: THE ONLY GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH. god, while theoretically possible (and again as i mentioned in a prior post, religion is simply a theory on existence) is a highly improbable outlier in the realm of possibilities. so your point is that i can't prove that god doesn't exist. thank you for proving my point! what is that point? NOTHING is 100% absolute. nothing. so, if this is true and, like YOU said ray, i can't know for certain god doesn't exist, then by that logic, YOUR LOGIC, you can't know for certain god exists. THAT MAKES YOU AN AGNOSTIC THEIST, RAY! did i just blow your mind or what? btw that's the biggest cop-out in religious logic. check the image link below, copy/paste in a new window/tab http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_osrVjnPbd...eal_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp i found it years ago and it perfectly embodies the fallacious logic you've just used. i'll repeat the question, and i'll get more specific. i'm not asking you to prove to me god exists, there's a post below with that topic. i'm asking you if you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. do you know? share how you know this. how can you possible be %100 certain of it? and if you are %100 certain of this, can you be %100 certain that other beings outside our realm of awareness (such as allah, the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns) do not exist? how do you know that these beings do not exist? i eagerly await any and all responses.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
bibleprobe will probably delete this post, because it challenges his/her beliefs. don't be a hater, bibleprobe. WWJD?
so my new thread, asking people to show their certainty and/or knowledge of god's existence, was deleted because the admin. thought it was "atheist nonsense", and apparently all atheist nonsense, regardless of topic, must be quarantined to one thread. i am forced to intrude on your thread, rawrgor, i apologize.
so i posted the quesion: are you %100 certain of god's existence, explain your knowledge about this certainty, and ray responded with this phrase, almost exactly "show me your %100 certainty that god does not exist." here is my response (and btw, bibleprobe, i challenge you to answer this, if you delete it then it only solidifies my side of the argument because it shows your refusal and unwillingness to make known your certainty of god's existence)
i feel that i shouldn't have to say this, but it seems necessary: i mean no offense to anyone, i am simply stating my beliefs as everyone on this forum is and i apologize if you are offended, it is never my intention, if there is something on here that offends please TALK TO ME instead of deleting the post.
anyway, my response to ray's response:
ray you just made my day.
to answer your question, no. i do not know for absolute certain god exists, nor do i know for absolute certain that god does not exist. i am an agnostic atheist because, while i ascertain that anything is possible simply because we do not know everything (and probably never will), the existence of god is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely and therefore i do not believe in god. as i mentioned in a previous post: THE ONLY GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH. god, while theoretically possible (and again as i mentioned in a prior post, religion is simply a theory on existence) is a highly improbable outlier in the realm of possibilities.
so your point is that i can't prove that god doesn't exist. thank you for proving my point! what is that point? NOTHING is 100% absolute. nothing. so, if this is true and, like YOU said ray, i can't know for certain god doesn't exist, then by that logic, YOUR LOGIC, you can't know for certain god exists. THAT MAKES YOU AN AGNOSTIC THEIST, RAY! did i just blow your mind or what?
btw that's the biggest cop-out in religious logic. check the image link below, copy/paste in a new window/tab
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWRhgGlPoUD4RLkKBywfhPSkOdW8UFWfInSCzJRVAfEXOtPIlKGvAP6l_AkVW0NaYk2hA9Ii7Mh-xSHx_B4x_oxCv4urAPBkIHcZD3iB-ktVGH6x0-diwAt5y818PDsI3Cf1lsxvC-jcg/s400/Real_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp
i found it years ago and it perfectly embodies the fallacious logic you've just used.
i'll repeat the question, and i'll get more specific. i'm not asking you to prove to me god exists, there's a post below with that topic. i'm asking you if you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. do you know? share how you know this. how can you possible be %100 certain of it? and if you are %100 certain of this, can you be %100 certain that other beings outside our realm of awareness (such as allah, the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns) do not exist? how do you know that these beings do not exist?
i eagerly await any and all responses.
posted by jakegarland, 03.02.2009
grape ape; first of all, THANK YOU for opening yourself up to something new and/or different. like all abrahamic religion, the religious text of christianity is presented as the infallible word of god in all matters of morality, existence and destiny. there is a distinction i would like to make right now, and that is jesus christ as a penultimate figure for morality has little to do with the radically different morality preached by modern christians. first, an examination of the bible from an historical standpoint. to do this, i ask you to suspend any beliefs (in the spirit of keeping an open mind) of the bible as the ultimate source of everything. this may go against the very fiber of your being, but we must look at the book as just a piece of physical text created by men and women sometime in the last two thousand years. if we separate the teachings of jesus christ from the bible, we see a purer, unfettered look at the morality of christ. I highly respect these teachings, they convey a fundamental goodness within humanity that seems lost in human interpretation of the bible through the generations. christ's lesson, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one of his chief teachings, and is much the same as the ancient grecian golden rule preceding christ, "do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him". this, i think, best sums up his teachings. it's not about converting the heathens or waging holy war to secure the sacred land, quite the opposite. it is about mutual compassion between one another. regardless of our views on life, we can both agree that what i don't want done to me, you probably don't want done to you either. this promotes the theme of moral responsibility i mentioned earlier this evening. rather than obscuring the ideal goodness with biblical interpretation, picking and choosing what you want to believe out of the bible and making morality an impossible task by modeling it after an omniscient, omnipresent being that defies further description. rather, it upholds self-accountability as a basis for goodness, as his sermon on the mount addresses so well. the bible, historically speaking, has influenced the rising and falling great empires, a religious movement still present today, and, unfortunately, it is a document that has been manipulated and warped by people into a weapon of religious conviction that has ended countless lives. as i stated, we must suspend the belief that the bible is the word of god transformed into english script. this belief cannot be upheld in logical discussion, if we are to examine our own views we must learn to do it as objectively as we can. in fact, it is that very reason that so many needlessly lost their lives, because of the burning crusades that have swept all of us up from time to time. i admit i've been transfixed by a cause or two that was against my very moral fiber. it is this sort of righteous zealotry that harms those who blindly follow just as much as those at the receiving end of their wrath. the content of the bible in historical terms, plainly, has always been decided by councils of appointed ministry. there were gospels that didn't make the cut, such as the gospel of judas and the gospel of mary magdalene (these are real gospels of the time, look them up they are very inciteful), to name a few. the councils that decided what went in the bible did so based on the interests of the church, and self interest. i've got more to say on the subject, but i'd like to hear what you have to say in response grape ape (or anyone else). also if i'm being unclear in any way please let me know i'll try to correct this as best i can.
posted by jakegarland, 03.02.2009
fezik, i truly apologize if i have offended you in any way, that was never my intention. i respect all beliefs that return that mutual respect and i did not mean to be callus or abrasive. i am simply here because i am someone who values beliefs different than my own, and i value rational discussion of these differences. this seems to be a quiet online community in which there is very little to question the standard. while i respect your request to not be accosted, may i just say that it is an internet forum of religious discussion, you do not have to look at anything you don't want to, forcing my beliefs on anyone is the last thing i want. having said that, it is slightly troubling to me that, with the entire world wide web at your disposal, the people on this forum (i'm not judging this is merely an observation) choose to close themselves off from any opinion that might differ from the christian or messianic beliefs. personally, i am always working to see if what i believe is as correct as it can be, and i respect those who question their own beliefs because it shows open-mindedness. once again, i never meant to offend. if you would rather keep this a tranquil and agreeable forum then that is your prerogative. clearly there is an irreconcilable difference in the way we view and test our belief systems, i only meant to rock the boat not tip it over. my apologies, -jakegarland
posted by jakegarland, 03.01.2009
...like i said earlier, you have your beliefs and i know there's nothing i can do to change them. i don't expect you to take what i say with a grain of salt, because it goes against your chosen belief system. your religion dictates the infallible word of god in the bible, thus anything contradictory to the bible is discarded as heresy. i understand that you used the examples you have in your last post because you think they are "historical evidence". no matter how much widely accepted historical data i throw your way you will swing at it with verses and biblical references and scripture, if my statements present any view contrary to your own personal interpretation of the bible and christianity. using bible verses and christian scripture to legitimize the bible is a fallacious action, it's circular logic and i won't acknowledge it as any sort of proof. and just because there were a lot of biblical texts in circulation does not make the words true, it just means there were a lot of bibles made.
posted by jakegarland, 03.01.2009
not to tread all over your thread Rawrgor but i feel compelled to respond, let me know if i'm encroaching. bibleprobe, several things: regarding your statements on the origin of all things: atheists do not believe exclusively that something came from nothing, there is no "atheist model" for existence, as you falsely claim. the only unifying tenant of atheism is the disbelief of any divine being, aka god. every religious person is an atheist to every other god except their own, some of us just choose to go one god further. each atheist i'm sure has their own theory, based on scientific data and logical reasoning, as to how the universe and everything in it may have been created, but humanity has never had the answer to that question. religion has never had it, science has never had it. the difference is science attempts learn about it and postulate theories to be tested, while religion uses ancient, fictional parables to explain the origin of everything. your term "historical evidence": while i agree that the bible is a chief element of human history, there is no "historical evidence" in the bible, it is a fictitious document. i realize that my saying this presents an irreconcilable blockade in the discussion, debate, whatever you want to call it, because you will say that the bible is grounded in truth, and i know no matter what i say you won't change your mind about that, so it becomes a moot point. the fact (or lack thereof) is there is no hard evidence to show the apostles did any such thing as you describe, or that the twelve apostles even existed as we imagine them, by modern historical standards. i am not saying they didn't exist, i am saying you lack the evidence to say they did, just as we have no proof that the author homer was a single man, and just as we lack the historical evidence to make anything more than speculations about the origin of the universe. as to your facts about the earth and your amazement of the human mind: i agree, it is absolutely incredible. the earth is truly a wondrous little speck in the universe. i see you've cited some rudimentary quantum physics to elaborate on how truly mind boggling our atmosphere and solar system are. again, i completely agree with you. but that is only our planet in our solar system, among trillions of others with countless planets that may sustain life even better than our own planet, in a seemingly unmeasurable universe. sure, the odds are pretty high that life developed like it did on earth, but those odds are the exact same for every planet with relative elemental environments (or completely different ones for all we know). we have adapted well to this environment simply because it is the only environment we have needed to adapt to. the universe is vast, and we are a young species(historically speaking), chances are there's a hell of a lot more life out there than we think we know. again, you cite scientific facts about the human body and mind (some of your claims are misstated generalizations but i see what you meant). that's a lot of scientific reasoning for some highly religious claims, doesn't the bible say anything about it? and just so you know, there is no difference between "the non-atheist human brain" and the atheist human brain, we all possess relatively the same cognitive capacities as one other, the difference is HOW we use our minds. i see the point you're trying to make: that the planet, existence, is too wondrous to have simply popped into being, that some creator must have orchestrated it. is that about right? that, to you, the bible, the other followers of christianity, the prominent place the church holds in human history, the mark on society christianity has made, these things present irrefutable proof of the existence of god.
posted by jakegarland, 03.01.2009 (edited by jakegarland on 03.01.2009)
i'm just going to throw this out there, i think it will resonate with some people on this thread: as to the notion of proving the existence of god: this is impossible. as to the notion of proving there is no god: this is also impossible. so far. what separates theism and atheism is the rejection or acceptance of a sort of divine deity. we atheists reject this notion on the grounds that a) there is no reasonable, empirical evidence to support claims of said deity, b) the claims of divine benevolence from theistic religions seem quite contrary to the stark reality of suffering on this planet, and c) it's just silly caveman talk. we may never know exactly how religion, more specifically deism, came about, but in my opinion it must have involved the big questions of existence: why are we here? how did everything come to be? is there a purpose? is there anything after this life? and so on. these questions have most likely been bothering every human that has ever existed, to one extent or another. it is frustrating to not have the answers to this, simply because we are human beings and our natural inclination is to ask WHY? what does religion do for people? it answers these questions. this lifts quite a weight off one's shoulders. i mean, if you knew the answer to why all things existed, you'd probably be much more satisfied too. not only does religion answer these questions, but it provides people with a moral community that fulfills those emotional needs all people have, to feel like a part of something, to feel like you matter. this is a problem, essentially because religion is one giant placebo effect. we all have that mental stigma of why?, it's like a medical condition latent in every person, a symptom we feel must be treated rather than a problem that must be solved, which is the rational approach. we find the first thing that covers up that inherent need to understand existence and cling to it blindly, because it sates our desire to know the unknowable. on the other side of the coin, the rational secular perspective is that everything religion teaches cannot be possible because it is farfetched with no concrete support other than the faith of those who follow it, and some ancient novels used as a moral guide to life. a rational person tackles these big questions from a position of reason, observation and skepticism. to the best of our ability, technologically, cognitively, objectively (as best we can), there is absolutely no reasonable scrap of evidence to uphold the notion that these questions are answerable, or that they will ever be answerable. god popped into existence because man needed a scapegoat. if we introduce a god into a society, the responsibility of an individual to other individuals is forfeit. yes it does say in so many religious texts that one must love thy neighbor as thy self, the golden rule is the underlying tenant of morality in most every religion. but having a god sets the standard of morality as a literal impossibility. it puts the idea of how we ought to act onto a character so vague, hypocritical, and unexplainable that any hope of ideal morality is an act of futility. then, of course, people start arguing and fighting about what it really means to be perfectly moral in gods eyes, since a final agreement of what is right is impossible when looking to the sky for answers. and so on and so forth and the crusades and the burning of the library of alexandria and the holocaust and 9/11 and the israeli-palestinian conflict and deeper down the rabbit hole we go... so in one sense, god does exist. he exists in the unshakeable beliefs of the people who committed the above atrocities, he exists in every person who is entirely unyielding to reason, simply because they answer to a higher authority than the judgement of their fellow man, he exists in the perpetuation of deflected moral responsibility and the continuance of a narrow-minded life lived based on a false societal construct. why should we ask why? we're not going to get the answer any time soon. it's not hiding under a rock in the amazon. or maybe it is, we can never really know for sure. and that, finally, is my point. that WE MAY NEVER REALLY KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD, OR THE ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS OF EXISTENCE, UNTIL WE FIND THEM, AND UNTIL THEN I BELIEVE WE SHOULD REFUSE TO FOLLOW ANYTHING THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE THESE ANSWERS AND THIS DIVINE BEING WHO MAKES IT SO. You shouldn't assume something exists until proven otherwise, you should assume it DOESN'T exist until substantial evidence is presented to prove its existence. it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. and i doubt we will ever find these answers...but then, can you really know anything for sure?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
no need to apologize, i'm glad you were willing to admit you were wrong to close yourself off like that. please continue this open-mindedness, personal bias is quite a problem ( we all have it, though some more than others), the point is to recognize these personal biases based on beliefs ingrained in us, and to overcome them, to try and view things objectively rather than through this self bias lens.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
sorry to break this to you but... you should probably look up the word "rational". it will make things a lot more difficult for you once you understand rationality, i'm afraid.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
well, which is it? is he going to hell or is he not going to hell? why would you two disagree on the topic, shouldn't the bible say whether or not he is going to hell? there shouldn't be any dispute in the first place on the issue, the bible is unalterable law and therefore not subject to interpretation, right?. so, which is it?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
i really don't understand why you just wrote all that... i have no problem reading the bible, i have no trouble accepting the physical realm or the concept of a metaphysical realm, i'm not angry or flustered in any way and the post you've responded to is, i'm not sure why you didn't see, quite placid. i've read nearly all the abrahamic religious texts, i understand them fairly well and i'm not looking for any help on this issue. i'm sorry about your family, although you were a bit ambiguous about what happened, it was your choice to do so, the perceived benefits of this loss must surely outweigh the consequences. did you really separate from your wife and your children because an irreconcilable difference in faith? what would jesus say about that?
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
i appreciate your message but it makes me sad that you think a life without your christian god is empty. when you realize that there is no afterlife, that this is the only time you have to exist, you make your life count because it's the only one you get. i've committed my life to helping others, regardless of race, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, political views, social class or academic stature because we are all the same, we're all trying to get by in this life and everyone, EVERYONE needs help sometimes. pardon me if i'm misspeaking but i do remember the phrase "we are all equal in god's eyes". i like that saying, i think if more christians focused on the true teachings of christ and positive sayings of benevolence and peace (which were some of jesus' main tenants) rather than wrath and sin and damnation then i most likely wouldn't be on this forum to begin with. another one, "we are all god's children", sounds nice, doesn't it? so just keep in mind, we are all god's children and we are all equal in his eyes, and every person wants pretty much the same thing: to be happy, healthy, to be safe and to be good. while i believe there are no universal truths, i think that's as close as we'll ever get to one. so share the love! if god is going to incur wrath then let him! but don't try and be his instrument, it never says anything about invoking god's judgement on others, that is for him and him alone. so love thy neighbor, take care of those close to you and don't worry about the other people, they don't want to hurt you, they just don't want you to hurt them. peace.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
and i see you even deleted my response to rawrgor's thread earlier, why? it was no more or less "heretical" than many of the other posts on that thread. i've read many posts on this forum, all posts i've written aren't the most offensive or radical atheistic or agnostic posts on this forum, clearly you have a beef with me. why? why what i've written instead of rawrgor or (dis)integrator or others?
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
don't you get it? i don't want a site "for me". i don't want a site with people who agree with me. i'm not here to argue. i'm here to discuss. we don't grow as people if all we do is sit around and agree with one another. it is good to find a group of people who share the same views and values, but that's what church is for. are you really, honestly on an internet forum to constantly agree? if so you greatly misunderstand the reason net forums exist.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
are you saying rawrgor's "prove to me there is a god" thread is the only thread for atheists? this hardly seems fair bibleprobe.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
bibleprobe; it says non-denominational at the very top of this forum, does it not? the definition of non-denominational is, and i quote: "not restricted to a particular religious denomination". why would you put the word "non-denominational" up on YOUR forum if you do not want a non-denominational user base? please either take those words off your forum or allow equal posting rights to all. now, if you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that it is, in fact, a different topic than the thread below. that thread is asking you to prove god's existence. i am doing nothing of the sort. i am asking the members of this forum if they are absolutely certain that god exists, and if so, to share this knowledge. this is an entirely different matter, and frankly i am curious as to why this question is threatening to you? you just deleted my post. without even reading what it was about. it was a different topic, bibleprobe. what are you afraid of? can you not show me your certainty of god's existence? to everyone reading this, i will repost my response to ray's comment to my original post, MY POST THAT WAS ITS OWN TOPIC AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED, on the bottom of the "prove to me god exists" post. for everyone who feels this post does not belong on this thread because it is a different topic, i agree, but "the powers that be" have decided to erase the post, for whatever reason ( bibleprobe works in mysterious ways) so i am forced to tack it on to a slightly related prior post.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
the subject says it all. and if i may, bibleprobe, can i start a new thread on the subject of atheists/agnostics/non-believers/free thinkers on this forum, and the opinions of all the users on this matter? don't get me wrong, it's not that i don't want to take your word for it, but i want to hear it from the other members as well. i was going to just post a new one but as you control this forum and don't want anyone but christians creating new posts i figured i might as well ask your permission (i don't think i should have to but it's your forum, you run it the way you want) instead of just putting up the new post and having you delete it immediately. here's pretty much what my new post would ask: *BEGINNING OF POSSIBLE NEW POST* i ask everyone on this forum to chip in their opinion: how do you feel about atheists/agnostics/non-believers/free thinkers on this forum? is there a certain style of discussion that you feel more comfortable with from members with these viewpoints, i.e. respectful questions and responses as i have tried to make versus angry denunciation and everything in between? what can i change in my words that would make you more comfortable with my presence here? i believe there is a reconcilable medium in which members who do not belong to christian/messianic faiths can remain on this forum with those who are believers. i ask you to tell me what that medium might be? bibleprobe, you talk a lot about ignorance, persecution and bigotry towards christians(maybe not in those exact words, but i believe the sentiments are there, and even though you are the majority in the western hemisphere and definitely the majority on this forum you refer to the persecution of christians). i believe that, if you kick other non-believers and myself out of this forum (based purely on a difference in belief rather than offensiveness or personal attack), you are perpetuating the very same sort of ignorance you decry. while i understand this is a christian and messianic forum, i believe that the spirit of christianity is to not to shut out difference but welcome it in the hopes it will see the way of the lord. so i ask, please, rather than kicking me and others out, instead try and move me to see what you see, to make me believe, to show me the way of christ and the lord, isn't that much more aligned with the christian way? surely it is possible for me to be saved, yes? also note i am not trying to de-convert anyone on this forum. i am trying to discuss religion. that is all. i am very interested to hear everyone's opinions. please, don't hold back. *END POSSIBLE NEW POST* so what do you say bibleprobe?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
i may have slightly misunderstood your last post, so i have a couple of questions, and pardon me if my following statements seem misdirected or misinformed: firstly you said, and i quote, (without your parentheses): "I do not believe that God himself would ever spawn evil beings, but do we receive temptations from God?" so here are my questions to you, as well as anyone on this forum that cares to respond: did god create everything? do evil beings exist? (if both yes, one would be led to the conclusion that god did, in fact, create evil beings) if evil beings exist, and god created them, does this contradict the concept of infallible benevolence? why does evil exist? to tempt us? why does temptation exist? does free will exist? can temptation/desire actually exist if we do not have free will? i have more but i don't want to bog down discussion, i fear i've already posed too many questions but they are all related so please bear with me.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
i should mention a commandment: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. the fact that god ordered people to kill, is a DIRECT contradiction of his own infallible law, regardless of reason. what say you?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
wow this post is riddled with errors, i don't even know where to begin, so i won't (one quick thing though, you are using human accounts as evidence to your point, they hold no sway in reason as they are personal testimonies and therefore void in logical discussion). instead, here are fourteen accounts of genocide (in varying degrees) evident in the bible: Drowns the entire earth. God floods the earth and kills every living creature. Except for the one family that was good enough to spare. Genesis 7:21–23 Destroys two cities with fireballs from the sky. God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah by reigning fire from the sky. Genesis 19:24 Slaughters every Egyptian firstborn child to punish a stubborn king. Exodus 12:29 Ordered Moses to kill 3,000 Israelites for worshiping a golden calf. Exodus 32:19-35 Kills half a million people. God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites. 2 Chronicles 13:15–18 Kills 14,000 people for complaining. The Israelites complain that God is killing too many people. So God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them. Numbers 16:41–49 Orders the Israelites to “take vengence” on all Midianites. After they killed every man, child and infant, they save all virgin women to keep as sex slaves. Numbers 31:7–18 Has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including women, children and babies. Deuteronomy 2:32–35 Commands the Israelites to slaughter all people of Bashan including women, children and babies. Deuteronomy 3:3–7 Helps the Israelites destroy Jericho. Once again slaughtering “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” Joshua 6:20–21 Finishes off the Amorites with rocks from the sky. God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes the job by reigning rocks from the sky. Judges 10:7-11 Orders the slaughter of a tribe and the rape and kidnapping of virgins. A tribe of Israelites missed an assembly to the Lord. So the other Israelites kill them all except for virgins, which they take for themselves. There weren’t enough virgins to go around, so they hid in vineyards to kidnap women traveling from Shiloh to provide enough virgins for everybody. Judges 21:1–23 Kills 50,000 people for being curious. God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. 1 Samuel 6:19 Commands the slaughter of the Amalekites for something their ancestors did 400 years before. God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekite men, women, children, infants, and cattle for the sins of their ancestors. 1 Samuel 15:1–9 Commands the slaughter of the Amalekites for something their ancestors did 400 years before. God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekite men, women, children, infants, and cattle for the sins of their ancestors. 1 Samuel 15:1–9 now, you tell me, was it the god of islam that committed these atrocities? it seems pretty clear it was the christian god. no masquerading necessary.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
for those not aware, up until recently, according to catholic teachings, in the event of a child dying that had not yet been baptized, that child would go to limbo. within the last two years, however, the catholic church rebuked the concept of limbo from it's dogma, despite it's unerring, constant place in the catholic faith throughout history. this concept was withdrawn from dogmatic teachings because it was viewed cruel that children who were not baptized before their deaths could not gain admittance to heaven. however, st. augustine posited that baptism was essential for salvation, thus an infant who had not been baptized was doomed to hell, not just limbo. but this is just the catholic view on this issue, what are the other christian-denominational views on this issue? if there are several differing views, what is the correct view? and if the idea of limbo was a part of dogmatic law in the catholic faith then how can the new pope justify it's deletion? doesn't that defy god's infallible will? i'm not trying to goad or antagonize, i'm seriously curious as to how an "infallible" ruling can be made on such an issue? how can one christian denomination fully justify a differing belief from another denomination, if god's law is singular, infallible and unchangeable? i do not fully understand, can someone explain it?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
so, discounting biblical references, that other book of fiction you cited (nephilim stargates), religious preponderance to the speed of david's sling and goliath's skull, we are left with....physical evidence!! the picture you put up is not of a bone, it is a sculpture of a human femur made to scale (this is what the picture says). it is based on a measurement taken, so it is not physical evidence, but a mock-up of physical evidence. ok, so i totally believe you about giants, but i just want to know where i can go to see the bones you were referring to? if they've been excavated, and they are as big as you say, surely they must be on exhibit somewhere, right? especially those excavated in the last hundred years, a person over 30 feet tall, that's quite incredible, and we dug up this physical evidence so i'm sure we didn't just re-bury it. where are the bones of the giants? btw a little aside about goliath: he is thought to have suffered from acromegaly or gigantism as it's commonly known. effects of this disease include (but are not limited to) Spinal Cord or nerve root compression from bony overgrowth, enlargement of bone, headache; visual impairment, hypopituitarism/pituitary tumors, rhinorrhea and others. goliath is said to have suffered specifically from hypopituitarism/ pituitary tumors, the enlargement, inflammation and inactivity/overactivity of the pituitary gland, the "master gland" that controls many chemical processes in the human body, the most relevant of which is the human growth hormone. this inflammation of the gland (or the tumor, or both) can be highly vulnerable because of it's proximity to the brain. it is theorized that david's rock may have struck goliath at a point on his (quite possible) malformed skull and ruptured either the gland or the tumor, causing immediate brain hemorrhaging and death. here's a bit of further information about this disease: Acromegaly/Gigantism is a very rare disease (annual incidence: 3/1.000.000). The syndrome results from a chronic exposure to GH (Growth Hormone) leading to the classic clinical features that the diagnosis seems to be easy. High exposure to GH produces gigantism in youths prior to epiphyseal fusion and acromegaly in adults. The early diagnosis and intervention may prevent irreversible changes associated with chronic overproduction of GH (as well IGF-1) and may also normalize life expectancy. These patients have an increased mortality rate from systemic sequela of hypersomatotrophism in 2-4 times that of the healthy population. Etiology Acromegaly/Gigantism is the second in frequency of Pituitary Adenomas, accounting for about 17% of them. It is often caused by a pituitary adenoma GH secreting (99%), but other causes has been described such as: A rare form caused by hypersecretion of GHRH from an ectopic source (pancreatic islet or carcinoid tumors) or from within the central nervous system such as ganglyoneuroma (called eutopic). Even more rare form is a nonpituitary GH secreting tumor documented in a few lung tumors and in those called Ectopic Pituitary Tumor (Esphenoidal). the tallest man in recorded history, excuse me in modern history not biblical, is robert wadlow. he was 8 feet 11 inches tall and died in 1940. here's more info if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow so, yes! there are giants, they can get somewhere around nine or ten feet tall (as far as we have physical evidence of), and it is possible that they can grow even larger due to this gigantism. this disease is also hereditary, which explains mass graves and many giants buried together. they were families. so, where are the bones of the giants that were several stories tall? they have to be somewhere, do your findings indicate where they might have been moved for research?
posted by jakegarland, 03.11.2009
the website worth1000.com is a website dedicated to displaying photoshopped pictures to certain themes. the term "photoshop" refers to the manipulation of digital pictures to alter the overall picture. there are many computer programs that can do this, the most common of which is called adobe photoshop. here is the website with the picture at the top of fezik's findings: http://www.worth1000.com/contest.as...est_id=447&display=photoshop this is the origin of the picture, it is posted by a user named called ironkite and it's the 4th picture down, the theme of this thread is archaeological anomalies 2 (as it's the second series of photos on this topic). i can assure you that, no matter how real it looks, it is a digitally altered photo. as to the other photos, they are fairly obviously photoshopped but i'm not going to spend all my time tracking down their origins. so, i cannot prove they are not real, but this does not, by any means, make them real. they are by no stretch of the imagination proof of enormous giants. again i will say, photos can be manipulated every way imaginable, so any picture cannot be used as evidence. the only reputable source of actual proof would be a first person account of these bones. so again, i ask, where are the bones of enormous giants so that a person may look at them for themselves? also, no one has answered any of the questions i've posed, either on this thread or on others. please at least read my earlier post on this thread and consider what i've asked, at least for yourself, if not to write an answer back.
here are my posts (the one's that survived bibleprobe anyway)
Bibleprobe’s bane.
almost all of the posts i put on the forum were saved and are below, a couple were taken off the site as soon as ol' prober sawit. anyway, the website
http://prorege-forum.com/forum.php)
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
putting the responsibility of homeland security on god takes the responsibility out of the hands of those who should be defending the state. btw, no terrorist is going to bother with kentucky anyway.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
there are several misconceptions that seem to have led you to the claim that buddha had a prophecy about christ. this is quite wrong but i can see, based on your cited source, how you could have made this mistake. let's clear up a few things: firstly, you'll notice i made no mention of buddhism. this is because it is not a deistic religion, it makes no claims of any sort of spiritual or metaphysical beings as most religions do. the buddha, all the buddhas, were mortal humans. you are referring to the texts found in northern thailand from the pali canon of theravada buddhism, an orally transferred canon until it was finally written into text in the first century b.c.e., and it's supposed prophecy of maitreya (in sanskrit), or metteyya (in its original pali). this was not a prophecy from the original buddha but a scripture written and changed later, hundreds of years after the buddha. it differs from nearly all the original buddha's teachings in that it begins and ends with discussion with other monks on an entirely different subject, while the buddha's other sermons are preached in answer to a question. and of course there's the blatant time gap making it an impossibility. buddhism to date has not officially recognized any being as the incarnation of maitreya/metteyya, though the most popular and widely regarded visage of this being budai hotei, or the laughing buddha, who's statue we all know so well. many religions claim that their leader or prophet is metteyya incarnate. islam claims it is muhammad, since he is the last and most recent of acknowledged religious prophets. l. ron hubbard (the founder of scientology) claimed he was metteyya incarnate. and of course, as you've just said and shown with your inaccurate book source from your post, that jesus was metteyya incarnate. there are several standards, according to the prophecy, that must be in effect for metteyya to come into the world: his mother must die when he is seven days old, he must be uncircumcised, he must be born in india, he will come to be when human lifespan is back to around (approximately) 80,000 years (this is buddhist lore), and the teachings and practices of buddhism must no longer exist on earth, they must be long forgotten by all before metteyya can exist. christ doesn't fit any of those categories (except for maybe the uncircumcised part ( i don't know, is that one mentioned in the bible?), clearly we are not living anywhere near that long and obviously buddhism is taught and practiced widely still today. also heaven and nirvana are completely different concepts. nirvana is nothingness, escape from the cycle of rebirth (samsara) and suffering (dukkha), while heaven is quite a different animal, what with the dichotic parallel of hell, and god, and divine infallibility and everything else. quite different indeed. the book you've cited used the a source from thailand, the geographic location of the pali canon, but a place quite far from where the buddha would have existed or taught. we see this because it took some 400 years of oral transference from the time and place of the buddha to the time and place the pali canon was canonized. 400 years for the word of mouth to distort what the buddha might have actually said, if the buddha even said anything on the matter at all (and historical evidence suggests he did not, that is was written by the fourth buddhist council in 100 b.c.e. so you see, you've posted and cited a book that uses vague and highly refutable textual support. this is further distorted by the obvious bias the author of said book towards christianity. at the bottom of the scanned pages of this book it says this, under the new category of christianity (right after the category on buddhism, which was dedicated entirely the christ/metteyya connection, and therefore was more about christianity than buddhism) and i quote:"none of these ways, but one, has god said will fix the human sin problem". now that is all well and good, he has every right to write this and believe this, but it clearly reveals a bias that cannot uphold a reasonable claim of christ as metteyya.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
stop with the false insinuations about atheistic views bibleprobe. there is no common belief held by atheists other than the denunciation of a deity of any sort. we do not stare at existence as "nothingness" or a "black-hole" these are, quite frankly, stupid assumptions based on nothing more than ignorance and unwillingness to learn outside your personal bias and archaic doctrines. alright, so i could go on an endless diatribe about how you can't use the bible to prove the bible, this is self-refutation and therefore void within the boundaries of reason and pragmatism. but i know that you will then provide more self-refuting evidence about jesus fulfilling his prophecies and bible quotes and so on, ad infinitum because the entire argument for christianity lies in self-refuting doctrine, as with all religion. so, disregard that last paragraph completely if you wish, because here is what i'm going to do: for the sake of conversation, let us now say that i believe you can use the bible as it's own proof, that through jesus, the prophet as evidenced in the scripture, by the miracles and words of god in the bible, you can and are upholding a viable source for a case for your beliefs. to put it boldly: i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. so, i'm assuming that you believe the bible is the infallible, irrefutable word of god, yes? and in this, the old testament, the tanakh, is therefore also the infallible, irrefutable word of god. let me know if this is wrong. so, i've given you the benefit of the doubt, your belief in the infallible, ultimate destiny of humanity lies in the scripture of the bible is not being refuted by me. but what about hinduism? zorastrianism? taoism? islam?(an abrahamic religion with the prophet concept, just like christianity and judaism). all of these (except islam) existed before christianity, and present the exact same methods of supporting their claims as christianity, some of these with even more religious documentation than christianity. why, if i've accepted your claims about your god, your book and your prophet, should i discount any other religion? especially the ones that provide more documents backing their beliefs? what makes christianity the exception? if it is allowed that christianity is supported in it's claims by it's own self-refuting documents then we must allow this support for all religions that attempt to prove themselves thusly. show me how christianity is the clear "correct choice". keep in mind that i can counter any claims of exclusive divine right or infallibility in christian text with quotes from another religion claiming the exact same thing. show me something that goes beyond the claim that every religion makes and tries to prove with it's own documents.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
bibleprobe will probably delete this post, because it challenges his/her beliefs. don't be a hater, bibleprobe. WWJD? so my new thread, asking people to show their certainty and/or knowledge of god's existence, was deleted because the admin. thought it was "atheist nonsense", and apparently all atheist nonsense, regardless of topic, must be quarantined to one thread. i am forced to intrude on your thread, rawrgor, i apologize. so i posted the quesion: are you %100 certain of god's existence, explain your knowledge about this certainty, and ray responded with this phrase, almost exactly "show me your %100 certainty that god does not exist." here is my response (and btw, bibleprobe, i challenge you to answer this, if you delete it then it only solidifies my side of the argument because it shows your refusal and unwillingness to make known your certainty of god's existence) i feel that i shouldn't have to say this, but it seems necessary: i mean no offense to anyone, i am simply stating my beliefs as everyone on this forum is and i apologize if you are offended, it is never my intention, if there is something on here that offends please TALK TO ME instead of deleting the post. anyway, my response to ray's response: ray you just made my day. to answer your question, no. i do not know for absolute certain god exists, nor do i know for absolute certain that god does not exist. i am an agnostic atheist because, while i ascertain that anything is possible simply because we do not know everything (and probably never will), the existence of god is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely and therefore i do not believe in god. as i mentioned in a previous post: THE ONLY GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH. god, while theoretically possible (and again as i mentioned in a prior post, religion is simply a theory on existence) is a highly improbable outlier in the realm of possibilities. so your point is that i can't prove that god doesn't exist. thank you for proving my point! what is that point? NOTHING is 100% absolute. nothing. so, if this is true and, like YOU said ray, i can't know for certain god doesn't exist, then by that logic, YOUR LOGIC, you can't know for certain god exists. THAT MAKES YOU AN AGNOSTIC THEIST, RAY! did i just blow your mind or what? btw that's the biggest cop-out in religious logic. check the image link below, copy/paste in a new window/tab http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_osrVjnPbd...eal_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp i found it years ago and it perfectly embodies the fallacious logic you've just used. i'll repeat the question, and i'll get more specific. i'm not asking you to prove to me god exists, there's a post below with that topic. i'm asking you if you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. do you know? share how you know this. how can you possible be %100 certain of it? and if you are %100 certain of this, can you be %100 certain that other beings outside our realm of awareness (such as allah, the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns) do not exist? how do you know that these beings do not exist? i eagerly await any and all responses.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
bibleprobe will probably delete this post, because it challenges his/her beliefs. don't be a hater, bibleprobe. WWJD?
so my new thread, asking people to show their certainty and/or knowledge of god's existence, was deleted because the admin. thought it was "atheist nonsense", and apparently all atheist nonsense, regardless of topic, must be quarantined to one thread. i am forced to intrude on your thread, rawrgor, i apologize.
so i posted the quesion: are you %100 certain of god's existence, explain your knowledge about this certainty, and ray responded with this phrase, almost exactly "show me your %100 certainty that god does not exist." here is my response (and btw, bibleprobe, i challenge you to answer this, if you delete it then it only solidifies my side of the argument because it shows your refusal and unwillingness to make known your certainty of god's existence)
i feel that i shouldn't have to say this, but it seems necessary: i mean no offense to anyone, i am simply stating my beliefs as everyone on this forum is and i apologize if you are offended, it is never my intention, if there is something on here that offends please TALK TO ME instead of deleting the post.
anyway, my response to ray's response:
ray you just made my day.
to answer your question, no. i do not know for absolute certain god exists, nor do i know for absolute certain that god does not exist. i am an agnostic atheist because, while i ascertain that anything is possible simply because we do not know everything (and probably never will), the existence of god is extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely and therefore i do not believe in god. as i mentioned in a previous post: THE ONLY GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GREAT UNIVERSAL TRUTH. god, while theoretically possible (and again as i mentioned in a prior post, religion is simply a theory on existence) is a highly improbable outlier in the realm of possibilities.
so your point is that i can't prove that god doesn't exist. thank you for proving my point! what is that point? NOTHING is 100% absolute. nothing. so, if this is true and, like YOU said ray, i can't know for certain god doesn't exist, then by that logic, YOUR LOGIC, you can't know for certain god exists. THAT MAKES YOU AN AGNOSTIC THEIST, RAY! did i just blow your mind or what?
btw that's the biggest cop-out in religious logic. check the image link below, copy/paste in a new window/tab
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWRhgGlPoUD4RLkKBywfhPSkOdW8UFWfInSCzJRVAfEXOtPIlKGvAP6l_AkVW0NaYk2hA9Ii7Mh-xSHx_B4x_oxCv4urAPBkIHcZD3iB-ktVGH6x0-diwAt5y818PDsI3Cf1lsxvC-jcg/s400/Real_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp
i found it years ago and it perfectly embodies the fallacious logic you've just used.
i'll repeat the question, and i'll get more specific. i'm not asking you to prove to me god exists, there's a post below with that topic. i'm asking you if you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. do you know? share how you know this. how can you possible be %100 certain of it? and if you are %100 certain of this, can you be %100 certain that other beings outside our realm of awareness (such as allah, the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns) do not exist? how do you know that these beings do not exist?
i eagerly await any and all responses.
posted by jakegarland, 03.02.2009
grape ape; first of all, THANK YOU for opening yourself up to something new and/or different. like all abrahamic religion, the religious text of christianity is presented as the infallible word of god in all matters of morality, existence and destiny. there is a distinction i would like to make right now, and that is jesus christ as a penultimate figure for morality has little to do with the radically different morality preached by modern christians. first, an examination of the bible from an historical standpoint. to do this, i ask you to suspend any beliefs (in the spirit of keeping an open mind) of the bible as the ultimate source of everything. this may go against the very fiber of your being, but we must look at the book as just a piece of physical text created by men and women sometime in the last two thousand years. if we separate the teachings of jesus christ from the bible, we see a purer, unfettered look at the morality of christ. I highly respect these teachings, they convey a fundamental goodness within humanity that seems lost in human interpretation of the bible through the generations. christ's lesson, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one of his chief teachings, and is much the same as the ancient grecian golden rule preceding christ, "do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him". this, i think, best sums up his teachings. it's not about converting the heathens or waging holy war to secure the sacred land, quite the opposite. it is about mutual compassion between one another. regardless of our views on life, we can both agree that what i don't want done to me, you probably don't want done to you either. this promotes the theme of moral responsibility i mentioned earlier this evening. rather than obscuring the ideal goodness with biblical interpretation, picking and choosing what you want to believe out of the bible and making morality an impossible task by modeling it after an omniscient, omnipresent being that defies further description. rather, it upholds self-accountability as a basis for goodness, as his sermon on the mount addresses so well. the bible, historically speaking, has influenced the rising and falling great empires, a religious movement still present today, and, unfortunately, it is a document that has been manipulated and warped by people into a weapon of religious conviction that has ended countless lives. as i stated, we must suspend the belief that the bible is the word of god transformed into english script. this belief cannot be upheld in logical discussion, if we are to examine our own views we must learn to do it as objectively as we can. in fact, it is that very reason that so many needlessly lost their lives, because of the burning crusades that have swept all of us up from time to time. i admit i've been transfixed by a cause or two that was against my very moral fiber. it is this sort of righteous zealotry that harms those who blindly follow just as much as those at the receiving end of their wrath. the content of the bible in historical terms, plainly, has always been decided by councils of appointed ministry. there were gospels that didn't make the cut, such as the gospel of judas and the gospel of mary magdalene (these are real gospels of the time, look them up they are very inciteful), to name a few. the councils that decided what went in the bible did so based on the interests of the church, and self interest. i've got more to say on the subject, but i'd like to hear what you have to say in response grape ape (or anyone else). also if i'm being unclear in any way please let me know i'll try to correct this as best i can.
posted by jakegarland, 03.02.2009
fezik, i truly apologize if i have offended you in any way, that was never my intention. i respect all beliefs that return that mutual respect and i did not mean to be callus or abrasive. i am simply here because i am someone who values beliefs different than my own, and i value rational discussion of these differences. this seems to be a quiet online community in which there is very little to question the standard. while i respect your request to not be accosted, may i just say that it is an internet forum of religious discussion, you do not have to look at anything you don't want to, forcing my beliefs on anyone is the last thing i want. having said that, it is slightly troubling to me that, with the entire world wide web at your disposal, the people on this forum (i'm not judging this is merely an observation) choose to close themselves off from any opinion that might differ from the christian or messianic beliefs. personally, i am always working to see if what i believe is as correct as it can be, and i respect those who question their own beliefs because it shows open-mindedness. once again, i never meant to offend. if you would rather keep this a tranquil and agreeable forum then that is your prerogative. clearly there is an irreconcilable difference in the way we view and test our belief systems, i only meant to rock the boat not tip it over. my apologies, -jakegarland
posted by jakegarland, 03.01.2009
...like i said earlier, you have your beliefs and i know there's nothing i can do to change them. i don't expect you to take what i say with a grain of salt, because it goes against your chosen belief system. your religion dictates the infallible word of god in the bible, thus anything contradictory to the bible is discarded as heresy. i understand that you used the examples you have in your last post because you think they are "historical evidence". no matter how much widely accepted historical data i throw your way you will swing at it with verses and biblical references and scripture, if my statements present any view contrary to your own personal interpretation of the bible and christianity. using bible verses and christian scripture to legitimize the bible is a fallacious action, it's circular logic and i won't acknowledge it as any sort of proof. and just because there were a lot of biblical texts in circulation does not make the words true, it just means there were a lot of bibles made.
posted by jakegarland, 03.01.2009
not to tread all over your thread Rawrgor but i feel compelled to respond, let me know if i'm encroaching. bibleprobe, several things: regarding your statements on the origin of all things: atheists do not believe exclusively that something came from nothing, there is no "atheist model" for existence, as you falsely claim. the only unifying tenant of atheism is the disbelief of any divine being, aka god. every religious person is an atheist to every other god except their own, some of us just choose to go one god further. each atheist i'm sure has their own theory, based on scientific data and logical reasoning, as to how the universe and everything in it may have been created, but humanity has never had the answer to that question. religion has never had it, science has never had it. the difference is science attempts learn about it and postulate theories to be tested, while religion uses ancient, fictional parables to explain the origin of everything. your term "historical evidence": while i agree that the bible is a chief element of human history, there is no "historical evidence" in the bible, it is a fictitious document. i realize that my saying this presents an irreconcilable blockade in the discussion, debate, whatever you want to call it, because you will say that the bible is grounded in truth, and i know no matter what i say you won't change your mind about that, so it becomes a moot point. the fact (or lack thereof) is there is no hard evidence to show the apostles did any such thing as you describe, or that the twelve apostles even existed as we imagine them, by modern historical standards. i am not saying they didn't exist, i am saying you lack the evidence to say they did, just as we have no proof that the author homer was a single man, and just as we lack the historical evidence to make anything more than speculations about the origin of the universe. as to your facts about the earth and your amazement of the human mind: i agree, it is absolutely incredible. the earth is truly a wondrous little speck in the universe. i see you've cited some rudimentary quantum physics to elaborate on how truly mind boggling our atmosphere and solar system are. again, i completely agree with you. but that is only our planet in our solar system, among trillions of others with countless planets that may sustain life even better than our own planet, in a seemingly unmeasurable universe. sure, the odds are pretty high that life developed like it did on earth, but those odds are the exact same for every planet with relative elemental environments (or completely different ones for all we know). we have adapted well to this environment simply because it is the only environment we have needed to adapt to. the universe is vast, and we are a young species(historically speaking), chances are there's a hell of a lot more life out there than we think we know. again, you cite scientific facts about the human body and mind (some of your claims are misstated generalizations but i see what you meant). that's a lot of scientific reasoning for some highly religious claims, doesn't the bible say anything about it? and just so you know, there is no difference between "the non-atheist human brain" and the atheist human brain, we all possess relatively the same cognitive capacities as one other, the difference is HOW we use our minds. i see the point you're trying to make: that the planet, existence, is too wondrous to have simply popped into being, that some creator must have orchestrated it. is that about right? that, to you, the bible, the other followers of christianity, the prominent place the church holds in human history, the mark on society christianity has made, these things present irrefutable proof of the existence of god.
posted by jakegarland, 03.01.2009 (edited by jakegarland on 03.01.2009)
i'm just going to throw this out there, i think it will resonate with some people on this thread: as to the notion of proving the existence of god: this is impossible. as to the notion of proving there is no god: this is also impossible. so far. what separates theism and atheism is the rejection or acceptance of a sort of divine deity. we atheists reject this notion on the grounds that a) there is no reasonable, empirical evidence to support claims of said deity, b) the claims of divine benevolence from theistic religions seem quite contrary to the stark reality of suffering on this planet, and c) it's just silly caveman talk. we may never know exactly how religion, more specifically deism, came about, but in my opinion it must have involved the big questions of existence: why are we here? how did everything come to be? is there a purpose? is there anything after this life? and so on. these questions have most likely been bothering every human that has ever existed, to one extent or another. it is frustrating to not have the answers to this, simply because we are human beings and our natural inclination is to ask WHY? what does religion do for people? it answers these questions. this lifts quite a weight off one's shoulders. i mean, if you knew the answer to why all things existed, you'd probably be much more satisfied too. not only does religion answer these questions, but it provides people with a moral community that fulfills those emotional needs all people have, to feel like a part of something, to feel like you matter. this is a problem, essentially because religion is one giant placebo effect. we all have that mental stigma of why?, it's like a medical condition latent in every person, a symptom we feel must be treated rather than a problem that must be solved, which is the rational approach. we find the first thing that covers up that inherent need to understand existence and cling to it blindly, because it sates our desire to know the unknowable. on the other side of the coin, the rational secular perspective is that everything religion teaches cannot be possible because it is farfetched with no concrete support other than the faith of those who follow it, and some ancient novels used as a moral guide to life. a rational person tackles these big questions from a position of reason, observation and skepticism. to the best of our ability, technologically, cognitively, objectively (as best we can), there is absolutely no reasonable scrap of evidence to uphold the notion that these questions are answerable, or that they will ever be answerable. god popped into existence because man needed a scapegoat. if we introduce a god into a society, the responsibility of an individual to other individuals is forfeit. yes it does say in so many religious texts that one must love thy neighbor as thy self, the golden rule is the underlying tenant of morality in most every religion. but having a god sets the standard of morality as a literal impossibility. it puts the idea of how we ought to act onto a character so vague, hypocritical, and unexplainable that any hope of ideal morality is an act of futility. then, of course, people start arguing and fighting about what it really means to be perfectly moral in gods eyes, since a final agreement of what is right is impossible when looking to the sky for answers. and so on and so forth and the crusades and the burning of the library of alexandria and the holocaust and 9/11 and the israeli-palestinian conflict and deeper down the rabbit hole we go... so in one sense, god does exist. he exists in the unshakeable beliefs of the people who committed the above atrocities, he exists in every person who is entirely unyielding to reason, simply because they answer to a higher authority than the judgement of their fellow man, he exists in the perpetuation of deflected moral responsibility and the continuance of a narrow-minded life lived based on a false societal construct. why should we ask why? we're not going to get the answer any time soon. it's not hiding under a rock in the amazon. or maybe it is, we can never really know for sure. and that, finally, is my point. that WE MAY NEVER REALLY KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD, OR THE ANSWERS TO THE BIG QUESTIONS OF EXISTENCE, UNTIL WE FIND THEM, AND UNTIL THEN I BELIEVE WE SHOULD REFUSE TO FOLLOW ANYTHING THAT CLAIMS TO HAVE THESE ANSWERS AND THIS DIVINE BEING WHO MAKES IT SO. You shouldn't assume something exists until proven otherwise, you should assume it DOESN'T exist until substantial evidence is presented to prove its existence. it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. and i doubt we will ever find these answers...but then, can you really know anything for sure?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
no need to apologize, i'm glad you were willing to admit you were wrong to close yourself off like that. please continue this open-mindedness, personal bias is quite a problem ( we all have it, though some more than others), the point is to recognize these personal biases based on beliefs ingrained in us, and to overcome them, to try and view things objectively rather than through this self bias lens.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
sorry to break this to you but... you should probably look up the word "rational". it will make things a lot more difficult for you once you understand rationality, i'm afraid.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
well, which is it? is he going to hell or is he not going to hell? why would you two disagree on the topic, shouldn't the bible say whether or not he is going to hell? there shouldn't be any dispute in the first place on the issue, the bible is unalterable law and therefore not subject to interpretation, right?. so, which is it?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
i really don't understand why you just wrote all that... i have no problem reading the bible, i have no trouble accepting the physical realm or the concept of a metaphysical realm, i'm not angry or flustered in any way and the post you've responded to is, i'm not sure why you didn't see, quite placid. i've read nearly all the abrahamic religious texts, i understand them fairly well and i'm not looking for any help on this issue. i'm sorry about your family, although you were a bit ambiguous about what happened, it was your choice to do so, the perceived benefits of this loss must surely outweigh the consequences. did you really separate from your wife and your children because an irreconcilable difference in faith? what would jesus say about that?
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
i appreciate your message but it makes me sad that you think a life without your christian god is empty. when you realize that there is no afterlife, that this is the only time you have to exist, you make your life count because it's the only one you get. i've committed my life to helping others, regardless of race, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, political views, social class or academic stature because we are all the same, we're all trying to get by in this life and everyone, EVERYONE needs help sometimes. pardon me if i'm misspeaking but i do remember the phrase "we are all equal in god's eyes". i like that saying, i think if more christians focused on the true teachings of christ and positive sayings of benevolence and peace (which were some of jesus' main tenants) rather than wrath and sin and damnation then i most likely wouldn't be on this forum to begin with. another one, "we are all god's children", sounds nice, doesn't it? so just keep in mind, we are all god's children and we are all equal in his eyes, and every person wants pretty much the same thing: to be happy, healthy, to be safe and to be good. while i believe there are no universal truths, i think that's as close as we'll ever get to one. so share the love! if god is going to incur wrath then let him! but don't try and be his instrument, it never says anything about invoking god's judgement on others, that is for him and him alone. so love thy neighbor, take care of those close to you and don't worry about the other people, they don't want to hurt you, they just don't want you to hurt them. peace.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
and i see you even deleted my response to rawrgor's thread earlier, why? it was no more or less "heretical" than many of the other posts on that thread. i've read many posts on this forum, all posts i've written aren't the most offensive or radical atheistic or agnostic posts on this forum, clearly you have a beef with me. why? why what i've written instead of rawrgor or (dis)integrator or others?
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
don't you get it? i don't want a site "for me". i don't want a site with people who agree with me. i'm not here to argue. i'm here to discuss. we don't grow as people if all we do is sit around and agree with one another. it is good to find a group of people who share the same views and values, but that's what church is for. are you really, honestly on an internet forum to constantly agree? if so you greatly misunderstand the reason net forums exist.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
are you saying rawrgor's "prove to me there is a god" thread is the only thread for atheists? this hardly seems fair bibleprobe.
posted by jakegarland, 03.09.2009
bibleprobe; it says non-denominational at the very top of this forum, does it not? the definition of non-denominational is, and i quote: "not restricted to a particular religious denomination". why would you put the word "non-denominational" up on YOUR forum if you do not want a non-denominational user base? please either take those words off your forum or allow equal posting rights to all. now, if you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that it is, in fact, a different topic than the thread below. that thread is asking you to prove god's existence. i am doing nothing of the sort. i am asking the members of this forum if they are absolutely certain that god exists, and if so, to share this knowledge. this is an entirely different matter, and frankly i am curious as to why this question is threatening to you? you just deleted my post. without even reading what it was about. it was a different topic, bibleprobe. what are you afraid of? can you not show me your certainty of god's existence? to everyone reading this, i will repost my response to ray's comment to my original post, MY POST THAT WAS ITS OWN TOPIC AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED, on the bottom of the "prove to me god exists" post. for everyone who feels this post does not belong on this thread because it is a different topic, i agree, but "the powers that be" have decided to erase the post, for whatever reason ( bibleprobe works in mysterious ways) so i am forced to tack it on to a slightly related prior post.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
the subject says it all. and if i may, bibleprobe, can i start a new thread on the subject of atheists/agnostics/non-believers/free thinkers on this forum, and the opinions of all the users on this matter? don't get me wrong, it's not that i don't want to take your word for it, but i want to hear it from the other members as well. i was going to just post a new one but as you control this forum and don't want anyone but christians creating new posts i figured i might as well ask your permission (i don't think i should have to but it's your forum, you run it the way you want) instead of just putting up the new post and having you delete it immediately. here's pretty much what my new post would ask: *BEGINNING OF POSSIBLE NEW POST* i ask everyone on this forum to chip in their opinion: how do you feel about atheists/agnostics/non-believers/free thinkers on this forum? is there a certain style of discussion that you feel more comfortable with from members with these viewpoints, i.e. respectful questions and responses as i have tried to make versus angry denunciation and everything in between? what can i change in my words that would make you more comfortable with my presence here? i believe there is a reconcilable medium in which members who do not belong to christian/messianic faiths can remain on this forum with those who are believers. i ask you to tell me what that medium might be? bibleprobe, you talk a lot about ignorance, persecution and bigotry towards christians(maybe not in those exact words, but i believe the sentiments are there, and even though you are the majority in the western hemisphere and definitely the majority on this forum you refer to the persecution of christians). i believe that, if you kick other non-believers and myself out of this forum (based purely on a difference in belief rather than offensiveness or personal attack), you are perpetuating the very same sort of ignorance you decry. while i understand this is a christian and messianic forum, i believe that the spirit of christianity is to not to shut out difference but welcome it in the hopes it will see the way of the lord. so i ask, please, rather than kicking me and others out, instead try and move me to see what you see, to make me believe, to show me the way of christ and the lord, isn't that much more aligned with the christian way? surely it is possible for me to be saved, yes? also note i am not trying to de-convert anyone on this forum. i am trying to discuss religion. that is all. i am very interested to hear everyone's opinions. please, don't hold back. *END POSSIBLE NEW POST* so what do you say bibleprobe?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
i may have slightly misunderstood your last post, so i have a couple of questions, and pardon me if my following statements seem misdirected or misinformed: firstly you said, and i quote, (without your parentheses): "I do not believe that God himself would ever spawn evil beings, but do we receive temptations from God?" so here are my questions to you, as well as anyone on this forum that cares to respond: did god create everything? do evil beings exist? (if both yes, one would be led to the conclusion that god did, in fact, create evil beings) if evil beings exist, and god created them, does this contradict the concept of infallible benevolence? why does evil exist? to tempt us? why does temptation exist? does free will exist? can temptation/desire actually exist if we do not have free will? i have more but i don't want to bog down discussion, i fear i've already posed too many questions but they are all related so please bear with me.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
i should mention a commandment: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. the fact that god ordered people to kill, is a DIRECT contradiction of his own infallible law, regardless of reason. what say you?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
wow this post is riddled with errors, i don't even know where to begin, so i won't (one quick thing though, you are using human accounts as evidence to your point, they hold no sway in reason as they are personal testimonies and therefore void in logical discussion). instead, here are fourteen accounts of genocide (in varying degrees) evident in the bible: Drowns the entire earth. God floods the earth and kills every living creature. Except for the one family that was good enough to spare. Genesis 7:21–23 Destroys two cities with fireballs from the sky. God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah by reigning fire from the sky. Genesis 19:24 Slaughters every Egyptian firstborn child to punish a stubborn king. Exodus 12:29 Ordered Moses to kill 3,000 Israelites for worshiping a golden calf. Exodus 32:19-35 Kills half a million people. God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites. 2 Chronicles 13:15–18 Kills 14,000 people for complaining. The Israelites complain that God is killing too many people. So God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them. Numbers 16:41–49 Orders the Israelites to “take vengence” on all Midianites. After they killed every man, child and infant, they save all virgin women to keep as sex slaves. Numbers 31:7–18 Has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including women, children and babies. Deuteronomy 2:32–35 Commands the Israelites to slaughter all people of Bashan including women, children and babies. Deuteronomy 3:3–7 Helps the Israelites destroy Jericho. Once again slaughtering “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” Joshua 6:20–21 Finishes off the Amorites with rocks from the sky. God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes the job by reigning rocks from the sky. Judges 10:7-11 Orders the slaughter of a tribe and the rape and kidnapping of virgins. A tribe of Israelites missed an assembly to the Lord. So the other Israelites kill them all except for virgins, which they take for themselves. There weren’t enough virgins to go around, so they hid in vineyards to kidnap women traveling from Shiloh to provide enough virgins for everybody. Judges 21:1–23 Kills 50,000 people for being curious. God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. 1 Samuel 6:19 Commands the slaughter of the Amalekites for something their ancestors did 400 years before. God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekite men, women, children, infants, and cattle for the sins of their ancestors. 1 Samuel 15:1–9 Commands the slaughter of the Amalekites for something their ancestors did 400 years before. God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekite men, women, children, infants, and cattle for the sins of their ancestors. 1 Samuel 15:1–9 now, you tell me, was it the god of islam that committed these atrocities? it seems pretty clear it was the christian god. no masquerading necessary.
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
for those not aware, up until recently, according to catholic teachings, in the event of a child dying that had not yet been baptized, that child would go to limbo. within the last two years, however, the catholic church rebuked the concept of limbo from it's dogma, despite it's unerring, constant place in the catholic faith throughout history. this concept was withdrawn from dogmatic teachings because it was viewed cruel that children who were not baptized before their deaths could not gain admittance to heaven. however, st. augustine posited that baptism was essential for salvation, thus an infant who had not been baptized was doomed to hell, not just limbo. but this is just the catholic view on this issue, what are the other christian-denominational views on this issue? if there are several differing views, what is the correct view? and if the idea of limbo was a part of dogmatic law in the catholic faith then how can the new pope justify it's deletion? doesn't that defy god's infallible will? i'm not trying to goad or antagonize, i'm seriously curious as to how an "infallible" ruling can be made on such an issue? how can one christian denomination fully justify a differing belief from another denomination, if god's law is singular, infallible and unchangeable? i do not fully understand, can someone explain it?
posted by jakegarland, 03.10.2009
so, discounting biblical references, that other book of fiction you cited (nephilim stargates), religious preponderance to the speed of david's sling and goliath's skull, we are left with....physical evidence!! the picture you put up is not of a bone, it is a sculpture of a human femur made to scale (this is what the picture says). it is based on a measurement taken, so it is not physical evidence, but a mock-up of physical evidence. ok, so i totally believe you about giants, but i just want to know where i can go to see the bones you were referring to? if they've been excavated, and they are as big as you say, surely they must be on exhibit somewhere, right? especially those excavated in the last hundred years, a person over 30 feet tall, that's quite incredible, and we dug up this physical evidence so i'm sure we didn't just re-bury it. where are the bones of the giants? btw a little aside about goliath: he is thought to have suffered from acromegaly or gigantism as it's commonly known. effects of this disease include (but are not limited to) Spinal Cord or nerve root compression from bony overgrowth, enlargement of bone, headache; visual impairment, hypopituitarism/pituitary tumors, rhinorrhea and others. goliath is said to have suffered specifically from hypopituitarism/ pituitary tumors, the enlargement, inflammation and inactivity/overactivity of the pituitary gland, the "master gland" that controls many chemical processes in the human body, the most relevant of which is the human growth hormone. this inflammation of the gland (or the tumor, or both) can be highly vulnerable because of it's proximity to the brain. it is theorized that david's rock may have struck goliath at a point on his (quite possible) malformed skull and ruptured either the gland or the tumor, causing immediate brain hemorrhaging and death. here's a bit of further information about this disease: Acromegaly/Gigantism is a very rare disease (annual incidence: 3/1.000.000). The syndrome results from a chronic exposure to GH (Growth Hormone) leading to the classic clinical features that the diagnosis seems to be easy. High exposure to GH produces gigantism in youths prior to epiphyseal fusion and acromegaly in adults. The early diagnosis and intervention may prevent irreversible changes associated with chronic overproduction of GH (as well IGF-1) and may also normalize life expectancy. These patients have an increased mortality rate from systemic sequela of hypersomatotrophism in 2-4 times that of the healthy population. Etiology Acromegaly/Gigantism is the second in frequency of Pituitary Adenomas, accounting for about 17% of them. It is often caused by a pituitary adenoma GH secreting (99%), but other causes has been described such as: A rare form caused by hypersecretion of GHRH from an ectopic source (pancreatic islet or carcinoid tumors) or from within the central nervous system such as ganglyoneuroma (called eutopic). Even more rare form is a nonpituitary GH secreting tumor documented in a few lung tumors and in those called Ectopic Pituitary Tumor (Esphenoidal). the tallest man in recorded history, excuse me in modern history not biblical, is robert wadlow. he was 8 feet 11 inches tall and died in 1940. here's more info if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow so, yes! there are giants, they can get somewhere around nine or ten feet tall (as far as we have physical evidence of), and it is possible that they can grow even larger due to this gigantism. this disease is also hereditary, which explains mass graves and many giants buried together. they were families. so, where are the bones of the giants that were several stories tall? they have to be somewhere, do your findings indicate where they might have been moved for research?
posted by jakegarland, 03.11.2009
the website worth1000.com is a website dedicated to displaying photoshopped pictures to certain themes. the term "photoshop" refers to the manipulation of digital pictures to alter the overall picture. there are many computer programs that can do this, the most common of which is called adobe photoshop. here is the website with the picture at the top of fezik's findings: http://www.worth1000.com/contest.as...est_id=447&display=photoshop this is the origin of the picture, it is posted by a user named called ironkite and it's the 4th picture down, the theme of this thread is archaeological anomalies 2 (as it's the second series of photos on this topic). i can assure you that, no matter how real it looks, it is a digitally altered photo. as to the other photos, they are fairly obviously photoshopped but i'm not going to spend all my time tracking down their origins. so, i cannot prove they are not real, but this does not, by any means, make them real. they are by no stretch of the imagination proof of enormous giants. again i will say, photos can be manipulated every way imaginable, so any picture cannot be used as evidence. the only reputable source of actual proof would be a first person account of these bones. so again, i ask, where are the bones of enormous giants so that a person may look at them for themselves? also, no one has answered any of the questions i've posed, either on this thread or on others. please at least read my earlier post on this thread and consider what i've asked, at least for yourself, if not to write an answer back.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
the proof is in the pudding
i've just stumbled onto quite an interesting quote from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Talmud, the Old Testament:
Ecclesiastes 3-19-21, " For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"
Wikipedia (the closest thing i'll ever have to a god) says, "according to the Talmud, however, the point of Qohelet (the narrator of the book) is to state that all is futile under the sun. One should therefore ignore physical pleasures and pul all one's efforts towards that which is above the sun. This is summed up in the second to last verse: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; that is the whole duty of everyone."
hrmm... "all has been heard." my interpretation? there is no need to search farther than a simple set of morals, the ten commandments in this case, because that is the be all, end all way to lead a moral life. don't search for more meaning, be satisfied in knowing the reason to live a moral life is the moral life itself. alright, i see this is starting to get a bit preachy, i'll have to change up the format somehow.
-Jake
i got bored of the last stream of threads, so here's this:
my point with that last thread is, basically, there is no purpose for human civilization, so we should stop looking and focus on not destroying one another and things will probably be a lot better off. also to do this we have to realize the human experience is different for everyone because everyone looks through their own lens of "self" and is thus viewing the world subjectively.
but recently it occurred to me that, regardless of whether or not humanity has a purpose, humanity is acting like it does, and this is why we are where we are today. mankind, in searching for a purpose, gave itself a purpose. now, depending on what you believe that purpose is (and it's different for everyone except those who don't believe there is one) it all boils down to the same sentiment: humans are better than everything around them, so they must conquer it and make it has good as they are. whether by harnessing fire to allow us to see what humans in the natural world may never have seen, or by wiping out an entire ecosystem (one that may have even include humans who don't buy into this sentiment of supereriority), to harvest the natural earth so we can create an unnatural, and in our minds a better, end product. the fact is we live our lives as though we really are gods gift to the earth. even those of us who don't believe in god.
this is the false prophecy of our society. reasonable people of today may not buy into the idea that "humans are better than everything around them and this shit called nature needs to be altered for the better, and i'm just the being to do it!" in such blunt terms, but our society still runs on this notion because it is this notion that has fueled our society since it's conception in the mind of man. we have all been going about our lives on our planet with this notion ingrained into the very heart of us.
so, one might ask, "if this is the very nature of our civilization as we know it, it can't be all bad, right? i mean, sure, there has been evil because of man, but there has also been great good, right? doesn't the good of humanity shine through the veil of evil deeds, so that we may justify ourselves in the continuance of this lifestyle?"
this begs the question: who and what benefits from the lifestyle our current human civilization? with it's geneva convention and it's industry standards and nuclear silos and brand marketing and product wars and stocks and bonds and domesticating pets and exterminating pests and raising livestock for slaughter and ozone depletion and melting ice caps and race wars and religious persecution and the constant study of it all, it seems pretty obvious, so obvious that i want to ask a different question altogether:
does any other being benefit in any way shape or form from the current human civilization? and if not, how many beings are hurt by it, and how much are they hurt? how much are we hurting ourselves without knowing it because we are in love with the idea that we are above the laws of nature, that we do not need it to survive because we are the greatest beings that we have ever known?
so, on a somewhat related note, i've posted a question of the possibility of global morality in harmony with nature on thinkatheist.com, here's the link if anyone cares to read and respond to my ramblings:
www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/ok-so-we-reject-the-idea-of-a
respond either here or on thinkatheist, but IF YOU ARE READING THIS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK, CRITICISM OR COMMENTS OF ANY KIND, i am always in need of other perspectives and if you have anything to say on this topic it would be a tragedy if it was left unsaid.
damn, i have got to stop doing this at five in the fucking morning. anyway, thanks for considering my side of things.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
looking at things objectively and the meaning of life pt. 3
I don’t think it should be enough for you either. But therein lies the rub. If we look beyond pure faith in something, if we look for validity in proof in purpose of existence, we look for the most impossible, intangible, inconceivable notion that has ever graced our thoughts. it is the coup de grace of all philosophical speculation, scientists work tirelessly to know all there is to know with this eventual goal (I think, it’s either that or they’re trying to make a super hot babe like in Weird Science) and well, there is that whole religion thing again. and here is when things get a little mean (I really can’t continue without insulting peoples beliefs, which I hate doing and one of the reasons I rarely care to argue), but religion is at fault for this major dilemma between faith and reason when it comes to the ultimate question.
Religion (once you take away the smoke and mirrors) is what people who wanted to know all of these questions GUESSTIMATED. They looked at the sun and said “I wonder” and looked at the earth and then themselves and asked again, but for all their brilliant mental capacities they didn’t have any answers. But that human predicament that permeates most everything we do, our need to explore, to achieve, to find answers. that human curiosity, because there was no way to reasonably look for these answers, drove those people to do what many of us do when we feel the need to urgently explain something we have no idea about: they made some shit up.
Now I’m not saying that religions are just a bunch of shit people made up. What I’m saying is religion is created from and with the ideas of morality, existence, the non-physical and mortality that have been (depending on the religion) widely debated, amended and restructured to be the most feasible, relevant and easily acceptable dogma of the time. It just so happens that every scrap of opinion and information that these religions were based upon came from a bunch of shit some people made up about otherworldly entities and beings with powers and afterlifes and bad ones and good ones and other such nonsense, because they couldn’t explain it.
Humanity, for some reason, cried out for the answer to existence, and when no one answered us, we looked toward ourselves for the answers. the problem is, we stopped seriously asking these questions as individuals because a bunch of people thousands of years ago put their guesstimations on paper, and they were then published as the a truth from beyond this world. It’s all because of what? Laziness? A guy wants to know why but because he doesn’t have the means to find out himself, he will create an answer and truly believe in that fabrication because his mind craves a solution, and simply making one up is easier than constantly being overwhelmed with the impossibility of it all.
Religion (once you take away the smoke and mirrors) is what people who wanted to know all of these questions GUESSTIMATED. They looked at the sun and said “I wonder” and looked at the earth and then themselves and asked again, but for all their brilliant mental capacities they didn’t have any answers. But that human predicament that permeates most everything we do, our need to explore, to achieve, to find answers. that human curiosity, because there was no way to reasonably look for these answers, drove those people to do what many of us do when we feel the need to urgently explain something we have no idea about: they made some shit up.
Now I’m not saying that religions are just a bunch of shit people made up. What I’m saying is religion is created from and with the ideas of morality, existence, the non-physical and mortality that have been (depending on the religion) widely debated, amended and restructured to be the most feasible, relevant and easily acceptable dogma of the time. It just so happens that every scrap of opinion and information that these religions were based upon came from a bunch of shit some people made up about otherworldly entities and beings with powers and afterlifes and bad ones and good ones and other such nonsense, because they couldn’t explain it.
Humanity, for some reason, cried out for the answer to existence, and when no one answered us, we looked toward ourselves for the answers. the problem is, we stopped seriously asking these questions as individuals because a bunch of people thousands of years ago put their guesstimations on paper, and they were then published as the a truth from beyond this world. It’s all because of what? Laziness? A guy wants to know why but because he doesn’t have the means to find out himself, he will create an answer and truly believe in that fabrication because his mind craves a solution, and simply making one up is easier than constantly being overwhelmed with the impossibility of it all.
looking at things objectively and the meaning of life pt. 2
did it work? did you get the answer you were looking for? me neither. and this is a problem. i don't know about you (or maybe i do, was that you on craigslist?), but i really, truly believe, that none of us know why, that man has never known why and we probably will never know why. what do you believe?(you can have your cell phone back now). do you believe that mankind is destined not simply to be, but that he has a job description in his destiny as well?(in this economy? fuck!!). it's strange premise, but the concept of "why?" has bugged me (and mankind or whatever) for a long time.
so we can't answer this question without outside sources, that much is apparent, now we need to figure out how to most objectively choose our sources (mla or apa or lsd). fortunately in this day and age we (the white, upper-middle class, lazy, over priveledged me anyway) have access to a huge expanse of information from books to the internet to word of mouth and everything else. we are extremely lucky to have the wealth of information we do and (like we usually do) we completely take it for granted. but the trick is, how do you determine what is legitimate and what is questionable material for compiling results? how would you think, beyond any amount of research, backlogging or fact checking, should you determine the most appropriate place to start your search.
If it was me? I would start rationally. we know that the sky is blue, but we also rationally infer through science (get out the torches and the pitchforks) that the word blue is a construct that we have created to define what we see. When you realize language is simply man’s attempt (one of many) to more clearly define all things, then words also take on associative, correlative and sometimes even personal meanings. Unfortunately, this is the bittersweet nature of language and literature, it is susceptible to everything that influences the person or society that creates it. Thus society and language begin to fuel one another, literature inspires someone and they write or say something that inspires another, and so on (wow I really seem to like tangents, anyway moving on).
My point is (finally) that all information that has been assimilated from and into society since the dawn of human time has been tainted, in a way and degree that makes it impossible to reasonably and rationally determine any conclusion about the reason to human existence. That being said, are you starting to panic? Is there still something within you holding out that there must be some eternal or divine something (thingamagod) that has created it all, and it wasn’t just for the hell of it?(pun fucking intended). I say great, you have strong convictions, but right now you’re saying that on faith and faith alone do you believe that it was meant to be (which means you may also believe that through divine action the bible or any text, but just the one for the religion you worship, was written by god and is therefore untainted by man’s half-baked ponderings). And seriously, if that’s enough for you then that’s awesome, have a fulfilling life i guess. But for me it isn’t enough.
so we can't answer this question without outside sources, that much is apparent, now we need to figure out how to most objectively choose our sources (mla or apa or lsd). fortunately in this day and age we (the white, upper-middle class, lazy, over priveledged me anyway) have access to a huge expanse of information from books to the internet to word of mouth and everything else. we are extremely lucky to have the wealth of information we do and (like we usually do) we completely take it for granted. but the trick is, how do you determine what is legitimate and what is questionable material for compiling results? how would you think, beyond any amount of research, backlogging or fact checking, should you determine the most appropriate place to start your search.
If it was me? I would start rationally. we know that the sky is blue, but we also rationally infer through science (get out the torches and the pitchforks) that the word blue is a construct that we have created to define what we see. When you realize language is simply man’s attempt (one of many) to more clearly define all things, then words also take on associative, correlative and sometimes even personal meanings. Unfortunately, this is the bittersweet nature of language and literature, it is susceptible to everything that influences the person or society that creates it. Thus society and language begin to fuel one another, literature inspires someone and they write or say something that inspires another, and so on (wow I really seem to like tangents, anyway moving on).
My point is (finally) that all information that has been assimilated from and into society since the dawn of human time has been tainted, in a way and degree that makes it impossible to reasonably and rationally determine any conclusion about the reason to human existence. That being said, are you starting to panic? Is there still something within you holding out that there must be some eternal or divine something (thingamagod) that has created it all, and it wasn’t just for the hell of it?(pun fucking intended). I say great, you have strong convictions, but right now you’re saying that on faith and faith alone do you believe that it was meant to be (which means you may also believe that through divine action the bible or any text, but just the one for the religion you worship, was written by god and is therefore untainted by man’s half-baked ponderings). And seriously, if that’s enough for you then that’s awesome, have a fulfilling life i guess. But for me it isn’t enough.
looking at things objectively and the meaning of life pt. 1
how does one look at the concepts of goodness, religion, morality, existence, mortality, badness, belief, self and all that is in between from an objective standpoint?
every single person that has ever existed has looked down on the earth and up at the sky and asked: why? this is what makes us humans. as far as we know (get used to this phrase), beyond a reasonably scientific doubt, we are the only creatures to grapple with this seemingly unanswerable question, among others (also, get used to quotation marks with my words in them). these questions have eluded every great mind since the dawn of recorded history (have i built it up enough yet?), and is the very reason RELIGION exists (and is exiting, but more on that later). sadly it is also the cause of countless murders, civilization crippling doctrine, societally oppressive (and corrupt) leadership and santa's naughty list. it is also the inspiration for beautiful feats of architecture, many chief pinnacles of human ingenuity, countless acts of good and a large portion of existing literature. needless to say it is, as far as we know, in every persons life in some way, shape or form.
so again, how do we look at our own existence from a standpoint that hasn't already been skewed in any way? one would think you could simply shed all prior learned material on the subject, abandon everything and start from the ground up. the question you should ask yourself is: how would i, a puny mortal, search for the answers to all life's questions, to THE question without any sort of help? for starters, imagine that you have never heard anyone say anything about, well, everything (cell phones and twitter accounts are banished). it is important to realize that in doing this, you shouldn't be able to think of anything. this is good. now, completely free from t.v., facebook, newspapers, internet, other people and the very thoughts that were ingrained into your being since you were born (the very fiber of your existing morality) ask yourself: why are we here?
every single person that has ever existed has looked down on the earth and up at the sky and asked: why? this is what makes us humans. as far as we know (get used to this phrase), beyond a reasonably scientific doubt, we are the only creatures to grapple with this seemingly unanswerable question, among others (also, get used to quotation marks with my words in them). these questions have eluded every great mind since the dawn of recorded history (have i built it up enough yet?), and is the very reason RELIGION exists (and is exiting, but more on that later). sadly it is also the cause of countless murders, civilization crippling doctrine, societally oppressive (and corrupt) leadership and santa's naughty list. it is also the inspiration for beautiful feats of architecture, many chief pinnacles of human ingenuity, countless acts of good and a large portion of existing literature. needless to say it is, as far as we know, in every persons life in some way, shape or form.
so again, how do we look at our own existence from a standpoint that hasn't already been skewed in any way? one would think you could simply shed all prior learned material on the subject, abandon everything and start from the ground up. the question you should ask yourself is: how would i, a puny mortal, search for the answers to all life's questions, to THE question without any sort of help? for starters, imagine that you have never heard anyone say anything about, well, everything (cell phones and twitter accounts are banished). it is important to realize that in doing this, you shouldn't be able to think of anything. this is good. now, completely free from t.v., facebook, newspapers, internet, other people and the very thoughts that were ingrained into your being since you were born (the very fiber of your existing morality) ask yourself: why are we here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
