Is This World Just A Big Game Of Pretend?

[bdp]

Yep, nothing like friends Larry.

 

How many times have we had this discussion. And let me say, until ANY of you can accomplish the reductionist approach to some WONDERFULLY high confidence interval, then you all need to hush and temper your pride with humility. Like Checkmate's thread, put up or shut up. Serial whining...

 

Fuck you. You great big dumb fucking idiot.

[Ouroboros]

How many times have we had this discussion. And let me say, until ANY of you can accomplish the reductionist approach to some WONDERFULLY high confidence interval, then you all need to hush and temper your pride with humility.

No.

 

Like Checkmate's thread, put up or shut up. Serial whining...

Or you shut up.

 

I find it quite interesting when Christians come to this website and demand that ex-Christians shut up.

 

Just because hate, anger, jealousy, and depression exists as human identified emotions is not explained by a God having the same feelings or creating them.

 

So feel free to explain why and how God is the explanation to "feelings." (In a non-reductive way)

[Guest end3]

How many times have we had this discussion. And let me say, until ANY of you can accomplish the reductionist approach to some WONDERFULLY high confidence interval, then you all need to hush and temper your pride with humility.

No.

 

Like Checkmate's thread, put up or shut up. Serial whining...

Or you shut up.

 

I find it quite interesting when Christians come to this website and demand that ex-Christians shut up.

 

Just because hate, anger, jealousy, and depression exists as human identified emotions is not explained by a God having the same feelings or creating them.

 

So feel free to explain why and how God is the explanation to "feelings." (In a non-reductive way)

 

No the point is, the Bible says God is Love. And humans can't objectively measure love, yet most here hold adamantly that somehow the "facts" of this world deny God!!

 

Does this make rational sense to you?? And then revert to the same argument like I'm the idiot????? The rational minded, IMO, leave room for the option of God.

[Guest end3]

How many times have we had this discussion. And let me say, until ANY of you can accomplish the reductionist approach to some WONDERFULLY high confidence interval, then you all need to hush and temper your pride with humility.

No.

 

Like Checkmate's thread, put up or shut up. Serial whining...

Or you shut up.

 

I find it quite interesting when Christians come to this website and demand that ex-Christians shut up.

 

Just because hate, anger, jealousy, and depression exists as human identified emotions is not explained by a God having the same feelings or creating them.

 

So feel free to explain why and how God is the explanation to "feelings." (In a non-reductive way)

 

Yeah, it kinda does. If we persist in the qualities, then basically we isolate ourselves.....isolation being very close symbolically to death. This paint's a picture for life, and enternal life. It ain't that hard a concept to grasp Hans.

[par4dcourse]

 

I understood, I thought. If it's someone like Par, he needs the blood pressure boost just to have a meaningful day. It's my "special purpose".

 

Yeah, your sky-daddy beliefs and your feelings thereupon are my life.

[mymistake]

 

No the point is, the (edit)NONSENSE(/edit) says God is Love. And humans can't objectively measure love, yet most here hold adamantly that somehow the "facts" of this world deny God!!

 

Ah so this is what your word salads have been about. Yes the nonsense says many things. Since it is nonsense why should anybody care what it says? You start from a false position so it's no wonder that this false position leads you to false conclusions.

 

Does this make rational sense to you?? And then revert to the same argument like I'm the idiot????? The rational minded, IMO, leave room for the option of God.

 

It doesn't make sense because you start from nonsense. You are the one acting like an idiot. It's not other people's fault that you don't know how to communicate. Your opinion about leaving room for God is wrong. That is not rational.

[Guest end3]

I understood, I thought. If it's someone like Par, he needs the blood pressure boost just to have a meaningful day. It's my "special purpose".

 

Yeah, your sky-daddy beliefs and your feelings thereupon are my life.

 

Yes, that's the point.

[Guest end3]

No the point is, the (edit)NONSENSE(/edit) says God is Love. And humans can't objectively measure love, yet most here hold adamantly that somehow the "facts" of this world deny God!!

 

Ah so this is what your word salads have been about. Yes the nonsense says many things. Since it is nonsense why should anybody care what it says? You start from a false position so it's no wonder that this false position leads you to false conclusions.

 

Does this make rational sense to you?? And then revert to the same argument like I'm the idiot????? The rational minded, IMO, leave room for the option of God.

 

It doesn't make sense because you start from nonsense. You are the one acting like an idiot. It's not other people's fault that you don't know how to communicate. Your opinion about leaving room for God is wrong. That is not rational.

 

The problem is guy, I don't think you are smart enough to start from another's position and grasp anything.

[mymistake]

The problem is guy, I don't think you are smart enough to start from another's position and grasp anything.

 

So you have trapped yourself in the walls of what you think.

 

The reality is that I have grasped Christianity as a Christian, I have grasped agnosticism as an agnostic and I have grasped atheism as an atheist. I do adjust my world view when I encounter new information.

 

Perhaps you project your own inability onto me. Now is there something we can talk about or are you too busy passing out insults?

[agnosticator]

No the point is, the Bible says God is Love. And humans can't objectively measure love, yet most here hold adamantly that somehow the "facts" of this world deny God!!

 

Dammit End, you just reduced God to an emotion and an idea! You would also have to say God is hate, envy, malice, and all other emotions. Unless you just say God is love and Love is God. But to add anything else would make it untrue. Christianity would be irrelevant.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, it kinda does. If we persist in the qualities, then basically we isolate ourselves.....isolation being very close symbolically to death. This paint's a picture for life, and enternal life. It ain't that hard a concept to grasp Hans.

So the existence of abstractions makes the abstractions physical.

 

I like chocolate, therefore God. That's an argument from ignorance and begging the question. No evidence or proof is needed to argue the against failed logic.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Read the OP BD, I don't know what to tell you at this point. I can go over my interpretations of the Bible, but that's about it. From what I gather reading your last post, I don't know that there exists an objective method of "how to believe". All I do, and this is the truth, is weigh both sides, and decide if it makes sense vs. what I see as reality....or the human condition. But my perspective of the Bible is somewhat different than the norm....so there you are.

The OP or your first post? I didn't just read the OP, I thought of it and had it in my head for a long time before it was posted. Indeed, I posted it! Of course I read it!

 

I read yours too. You never answered my question.

 

Actually, an exchristian answered my question on how to "start making myself believe". So there is an answer. Also, gather up facts and match them to observed phenomenon, that works too when the information is relevant. Say evolution, its not just fossils and DNA as proof its real. Just look at intergenerational changes, and think about the obvious fact that after a long time, those minute differences will become seas of difference. Its a logical necessity. With regards to religion, you instead have counterintuitive answers. There's no evidence of a 6 day creation, but its true, because I said so, is essentially the Biblical arguement.

I get your drift, but please turn it around......tell me how to believe something. And specifically, tell me how to believe in emotional truths.

Ironically enough, though the question wasn't directed at her, she's the one person who actually did explain it. Just read her posts. You'll see her reply to that same question, the one I asked.

 

 

True story!!

Now tell me the one with the animals. And the birds. And the rainbow. And the flood that covered the whole wide world!

The problem is guy, I don't think you are smart enough to start from another's position and grasp anything.

I've seen enough posts to say he's actually quite smart, smart enough to know anothers positions and grasp them. I'd go even further to say that he's even smart enough to figure out whether or not that position is sound, or whether or not its full of crap.

 

You on the other hand, I can say you're smart enough to know when to weave around questions to not answer them when you know your answers don't suffice. I've seen it time and time again. Then you'll pretend answer them. I don't think you're dumb. Which is exactly why you insult others, its a defensive mechanism. You're defensive because you have no arguement against him and know he's right and you're not, but don't want to admit it.

[mymistake]

Now tell me the one with the animals. And the birds. And the rainbow. And the flood that covered the whole wide world!

 

Once upon a time . . . water didn't slow down light passing through it. So a raindrop didn't have the prism effect. So there were no rainbows. But then God saw that he had really screwed up when he created Earth and mankind. So God was very sorry about his mistake. God decided to make up for his goof by exterminating all the people, painfully, by drowning them. Yes the women and the children and all the tiny babies too! But God decided to not kill six-hundred-year-old Noah because Noah was righteous (even though the Inspired word of God says that none are righteous, no not one, but that is a different story) so God was going to save Noah and his seven phone-a-friends. Oh and God was going to save the animals too but not the dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, pterodactyls or saber toothed tigers because they didn't believe in God. Unbelievers have to drown! Then after God had done the genocide God was worried that Noah and friends might be scared of God (ya think?) so God made water slow down light so that water drops will have a prism effect. Because God can't be genocidal no more if there are rainbows. (That is unless God be doing the fire genocide, in which case all bets are off!) Says so right there in the Good Book itself.

 

 

 

P.S.

 

Why too kay? Cuz it comes right after 1999. Woot! _ _ _

[Margee]

Today is Friday the 13th. There will be millions of people around the world today who will not even go out, because of there strong 'belief' that this is a bad day. I know some!! I personally have never accepted this date as a bad thing. I don't believe it. So, I have never been afraid of Friday the 13th.

 

All of this shows us what 'pretending', 'faith' , 'belief' and 'non-belief' do to people. We either accept what has been passed down to us and don't question it or we do question it. I like to question. I questioned Friday the 13th, did a little reseach about how it started with all it's superstitions and 'threw it out as garbage. I want to believe only what is real and makes sense to me now....................

[Legion]

End, if I may address you directly in this thread, that would help me focus. But I'm also kind of just speaking to the world too.

 

I think you're right. Reductionism and the machine metaphor in biology, especially the machine metaphor, are failures in my estimation.

 

Having said that however, vitalism is not an acceptable alternative. I've learned though that there is at least one more option called complexity.

 

Increasingly it seems to me that mechanists doing battle with vitalists is really sort of tragic.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I used to love Friday the 13th when I worked at walmart, got teenagers coming to buy movies like crazy.

[Guest end3]

End, if I may address you directly in this thread, that would help me focus. But I'm also kind of just speaking to the world too.

 

I think you're right. Reductionism and the machine metaphor in biology, especially the machine metaphor, are failures in my estimation.

 

Having said that however, vitalism is not an acceptable alternative. I've learned though that there is at least one more option called complexity.

 

Increasingly it seems to me that mechanists doing battle with vitalists is really sort of tragic.

 

I don't doubt that the possibility exhists that if we were smart enough, that we could reduce it to the chemistry. With that said, things like epigentics, and lignification, and celluostic water purification, and triple points all "in type" or mirror/point to something other than the chemisty alone. Personally, I just happen to think it is the Christian God.

 

I can't at this point adaquately express the relationships. Is the word analogous, or type, or shadow, or ??

 

Like when I read the Bible, when it talks about Moses putting the stick in the water, I see an reverse osmosis membrane working.

When I think about the trinity, I think of the triple point of water.

When I think of the Christian maturation process, I see that also in lignification.

When i think about how evil or good can effect us, I think about epigenetics.

 

(Please, everyone, save the oh how stupid comments, the irrelavent comments, the illogical comments). But I think it speaks to an aspect we don't understand of haven't uncovered. It's really quite interesting

[Legion]

I don't doubt that the possibility exhists that if we were smart enough, that we could reduce it to the chemistry.

 

I do. I seriously doubt that life can be reduced to chemistry. I don't believe that organisms are alive by virtue of special chemistry.

 

I also don't believe that organisms have souls.

 

And I don't think about God or gods very frequently. I don't care. I care about nature. I care about acquiring understandings of it.

[Guest end3]

I don't doubt that the possibility exhists that if we were smart enough, that we could reduce it to the chemistry.

 

I do. I seriously doubt that life can be reduced to chemistry. I don't believe that organisms are alive by virtue of special chemistry.

 

I also don't believe that organisms have souls.

 

And I don't think about God or gods very frequently. I don't care. I care about nature. I care about acquiring understandings of it.

 

I think you misunderstood me. Reducing it down to the chemistry doesn't mean that this is the definition of life.

[Guest end3]

Just off the cuff here, we have so much variation in the individual systems, but we still have too much adherence to the "object" of life. If circumstance and environment and chemistry were the only factors effecting the human machine, I would think we should see more variation in "purpose".

[Legion]

I think you misunderstood me.

 

That's a distinct possibility. I've misunderstood many things before.

 

Reducing it down to the chemistry doesn't mean that this is the definition of life.

 

But it seems to me that the very idea of "reducing it to chemistry" is grossly misguided.

 

My hero biologist summed it up this way...

 

A reductionist approach says that when studying an organized material system, throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.

A relational approach says the opposite, namely, when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.

 

I believe organisms are alive by virtue of a certain manifestation of organization. So for me, the way we characterize organization becomes paramount to the study of organisms.

[Legion]

the human machine,

 

I don't believe humans are machines. I don't believe any organisms are machines. I suspect this metaphor is an unmitigated disaster.

[Guest end3]

I think you misunderstood me.

 

That's a distinct possibility. I've misunderstood many things before.

 

Reducing it down to the chemistry doesn't mean that this is the definition of life.

 

But it seems to me that the very idea of "reducing it to chemistry" is grossly misguided.

 

My hero biologist summed it up this way...

 

A reductionist approach says that when studying an organized material system, throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.

A relational approach says the opposite, namely, when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.

 

I believe organisms are alive by virtue of a certain manifestation of organization. So for me, the way we characterize organization becomes paramount to the study of organisms.

 

First, you will have to excuse the way I use these words. I am wonderfully ignorant of the correct usage. When I say "human machine", I envision the chemistry alone acting without consciousness. So see, just have patience please.

 

Here's an idea, has anyone graphed the organization alone.....for example you plot it all, chemistry and organiztion in a three-d model and then remove the raw materials? I think I must be on drugs at this point. My mind is telling me that if we did this, two things would happen, you would see nothing or you would hear "Paul is dead, Paul is dead" from Sgt. Peppers.

 

Let me think on it L.

[Legion]

Let me think on it L.

 

Sure. As you wish.

 

I've been thinking about this for years and speaking with many others about it. I believe I'm learning, but sometimes it feels painfully slow.

[Guest end3]

Let me think on it L.

 

Sure. As you wish.

 

I've been thinking about this for years and speaking with many others about it. I believe I'm learning, but sometimes it feels painfully slow.

 

I think it would make for some cool artwork anyhow......colors given to atoms but arranged in some organization......like a tree.. You think about it, it might offer some type of organization in itself.......organic, non-organic, etc. I'm sorry, I am reaching here, but I am abstract and I don't mind it....lol.