Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 213 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 4
True 1
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#14205 - 03/24/06 08:57 AM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Ok jjw004 lets assume you are correct.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?

There they are: Deal with them directly siting proof of each of your answers from any source other than an authorless mistranslated book.

Do you have the courage of your convictions or are you just trying to dodge the ball? Let us see.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
.
#14206 - 03/24/06 09:22 AM Re: information
Anonymous
Unregistered


1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?
Rep: Who , why and what have answers in Science and we can reach to a good conclusion..but are you trying even 1% to understand what we are discussing?We are discussing Everything in totality..and the good part is that there is nothing wrong if understand Self and Universe properly.
Diversity recommends accepting all including its own denial... do you think it can be made possible in the current frame work of yes and no..
There is a chance we have and we are wasting it.

Top
#14207 - 03/24/06 03:28 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
I love Science. I love the explainations for the framework in which my consciousness lives.
I also love that I'm not imprisoned by science nor confined by religion.

I've met Grace in my life. Even through times that have been trying and times that continue to try me. Grace is somehow intangible and works side by side with chance. Whether Grace is The Tao or The Holy Spirit or a figment of my imagination...I enjoy it's presence.

Here's a psychological excersize that I'll put out here...if it's too hokey for you just ignore.

For ten days every morning when you wake up say to yourself, "Something amazing could happen to me today." and then as soon as possible do what you are most afraid of.
Facing false fears is very key.
Don't jump out a window or face a fear that's healthy.
I mean have the conversation you've been putting off. Or take off your watch for the day...whatever. The idea is that Grace is all around us, but we are encapsulated in our fears. And if we open up a little...Grace will come rushing in to meet us.

At this point, I don't think God is a specific entity...I think God is the movement of Grace.
I realize I am spin doctoring the words God and Grace here in hopes you can catch the drift of what I mean.

If you don't like my ideas..that's alright :)I'm just sharing something someone shared with me.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14208 - 03/24/06 07:30 PM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dvk babbled incoherently:
"Rep: Who , why and what have answers in Science and we can reach to a good conclusion..but are you trying even 1% to understand what we are discussing?"

Ok so you have now proven you are incapable of answering six simple questions.

Next!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14209 - 03/24/06 07:32 PM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Justine wrote:
"then as soon as possible do what you are most afraid of.

Facing false fears is very key.

Don't jump out a window or face a fear that's healthy."

I agree that facing fears is important. But equally or more important is knowing you have options.

By definition almost no one will do as you ask ... because everyone defines their fears as being asked to do something unhealthy. If they didn't do that they wouldn't be fearful.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14210 - 03/25/06 02:22 AM Re: information
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Well I am now taking SAGG out of my favourites and will no longer bother you. It has been a good source of science news and I have learnt much and enjoyed the people here. But I am now getting tired of reading posts and feeling insulted as the thing that is central to my life is trampled underfoot on almost a daily basis.

I think the following was the last straw and if it was intended to hurt and get Christians down then it was certainly successful in my case:

"Evicted, I presume, because god out father was a louse like so many fathers. Always blowing up in a rage, known for violent temper tantrums. Probably also a drunk."


This has nothing to do with reasoned debate.

Goodbye all.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#14211 - 03/27/06 02:58 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
You are right about knowing the options...that is one of the things I see very clearly, now. I can visualize the possible outcomes of my choice in behaviors and then pick the one I want..sometimes being the one I'm most afraid of.

I tried it myself and I think the power of the excersize was in the realization of false fears that before I couldn't even see.

I realized that I was answering to my watch every morning so I stopped using a watch completely; I've still been on time. Oh and just breaking with any part of a routine felt liberating when I did it consciously...sitting outside with a cup of tea for a few moments or just changing up my personal order in getting ready in the morning.
The most powerful false fear was deciding not to fear my mother-in-law anymore. She has an explosive, self-righteous temper to the point that I just wanted to give up on her. That was my first fear that I faced the day I started and something amazing did happen. I asked to have lunch with her and she brought out something for me to read and it was really a gift to be able to read this certain thing that I didn't even know existed.
Oh I also realised that I don't like to disturb people. For example, if I'm walking in a not-too wide walkway and someone is a few yards behind me, if my shoe is untied, I'd prefer to wait until the walkway opens up instead of risking that person has to wait behind me or manuver around me. What is that about? Politeness to the point of invisibility. You know what I mean, silly idosyncradic fears. Why should I fear creating a little disturbance...that just leads to an opputunity of interacting. And interaction is where the "Amazing" happens.
I feel much better since I started this little excersize. It's a great way to wake up, anyway. Just with the reminder that the world is full of possibilities everyday.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14212 - 03/27/06 03:04 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
Blacknad...seems like you and DA have been having the same conversation for such a long time. I'm glad you have the strength to just let it go.
I hope you find a sense of peace.
Good luck wherever you go and whatever you end up doing with the time you spent, here. You're a good egg smile maybe we'll see you again, sometime.
Take care,
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14213 - 03/27/06 03:23 PM Re: information
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
I am now getting tired of reading posts and feeling insulted as the thing that is central to my life is trampled underfoot on almost a daily basis.
I think you're being a tad melodramatic, Blacknad. How did you think people would respond to religious reasoning on a science website? I suggest that you take Kate's advice and only respond to posts that you deem worthy of a response.

Top
#14214 - 03/28/06 04:49 AM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
There was a fascinating discussion over dinner tonight between a couple of us who teach at the university.

Part of the discussion was over the inability of deities, in all theologies, to communicate clearly. Seems to be a universal problem.

Dr. Cline suggested, very simply, that if any deity truly wanted to communicate pre-empting ALL forms of communication on the planet simultaneously ... TV, radio, movies, billboards, newspaper headlines, etc. would be a reasonably simple and effective method. He put forth one of three Boolean possibilities.

1. No deity exists
2. A deity exists but can't do it
3. A deity exists but can't figure out how to do it
4. A deity exists, could do it, but chooses not to commuicate directly

There is no fifth possibility.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14215 - 03/28/06 03:18 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
True.

2. (in other words) A deity exists, but doesn't work outside of natural law.

3. (in other words) A deity exists, but doesn't communicate through language.

4. (in other words) A deity exists, and supports reality by not taking control.

1. The deity is not a deity as we can comprehend.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14216 - 03/28/06 10:29 PM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Lets get Boolean:

If 2 then the deity, by definition, is not a deity. All deities MUST be capable of the supernatural and all deities defined by human thologies DO work outisde of natural law.

If 3 then all those that have "spoken" with a deity are liars: Inlcuding essentially everyone in all of the theological texts.

If 4 then all of the texts about deities are lying about what the deity has done.

If 1 then there is no point even thinking about said deity as, by definition, we can not comprehend it. In this category, alas, is the invisible purple rhinoceros.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14217 - 03/29/06 03:10 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
I think we need to examin the words "spoken" and "liars"

If the word spoken could be translated as "communicated" For example, I could say, God spoke to my heart and told me to take a group of multi-disabled people who have HIV to an HIV retreat. I really didn't want to go. But I felt a gut level sensation whenever I thought about the trip that it was something I should do because it would be good for me and for them. We did go and, of course, it was a rewarding experience and all around there were no glitches, everything ran smooothly. I know the people we took had a great time and I have a feeling that if I didn't go..the trip may not have happened. God certainly didn't speak to me in words that I heard with my ears.
It could have been my own subconscious causing the gut feeling. I don't know. And everything went smoothly and I've been on these kinds of trips before and a million things can go wrong, everything from forgetting important supplies, to transportation break downs, to emotions running hot and cold. Everything running like a well oiled machine is kind of rare.
So spoken could be a gut level impression or feeling that is interpreted more clearly by some people and ignored by other people. And in that sense, a deity could be speaking to everybody all the time.

Then the word "liars" seems inappropriate. They could be caught in illusions that they believe. Or they could be very focused on impressions they feel by an entity that is felt through emotions or only understood at the subconscious level. Either way they are telling truths as much as they are aware. There is a possibility that they really are liars, but we can't definitively state that premise as object truth.

But I do see your logic. If we only understand the word "spoken" as words stated by invisible lips in a resounding clear voice that should be heard by anyone standing next to the person who said they heard it, and they are of sound mind....yes then I believe in your logic and what you said is true.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14218 - 03/29/06 03:43 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
If there is some guiding entity that is beyond my comprehension, that is trying to communicate with us by sending us impressions. It's worth my attention.

It's a sublte operation, in any case.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14219 - 03/29/06 07:03 PM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
It is a pleasure to be able to converse on these subjects:

Justine wrote:
If the word spoken could be translated as "communicated" For example, I could say, God spoke to my heart and told me to take a group of multi-disabled people who have HIV to an HIV retreat. I really didn't want to go. But I felt a gut level sensation..."

Good example. So lets take your sentence and substitute "my conscience." Rewrite it as "my conscience spoke to my heart ...." No need to invoke the creator of heaven and heck. Fabricating an invisible purple rhinoceros is not necessary.

Justine wrote:
"Then the word "liars" seems inappropriate. They could be caught in illusions that they believe."

I can not disagree. But lets take this to its logical conclusion. If people act on illusions then they are either (1) hallucinating or (2) in need of treatment of a psychosis. Neither of which, in conventional terms implicates the creator the universe.

So let me rewrite my response taking into account your considerations.

If 2 then the deity, by definition, is not a deity. All deities MUST be capable of the supernatural and all deities defined by human thologies DO work outside of natural law.

If 3 then all those that have "spoken" with a deity are EITHER LYING OR EXPERIENCING A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE: Including essentially everyone in all of the theological texts.

If 4 then all of the texts about deities are lying OR DESCRIBING THE THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES OF SOMEONE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCE WHEN SPEAKING about what the deity has done.

If 1 then there is no point even thinking about said deity as, by definition, we can not comprehend it. In this category, alas, is the invisible purple rhinoceros.

Does that make it better? Perhaps clearer and more inclusive ... but I doubt too many "true believers" would like the concept that they are psychotic and/or hallucinating.

Justine wrote:
"If there is some guiding entity that is beyond my comprehension, that is trying to communicate with us by sending us impressions. It's worth my attention."

Lets assume that this is correct. Now lets return to Genesis 3:3 and consider the text:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

There it is. Looks to me like the guiding entity is capable of clear and concise communication. So my challenge to you is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have a clear communication, and there are many in all theologies and then later claim that this very same entity can't get on TV.
That the entity that created humans and speech is incapable of saying "Stop it now!"

Did Noah have a problem with communication?
How about Moses?
How about ...
You get my point.

I'll grant, as above, they all may have been mentally unfit. But they seemingly had no problem with clear and concise communication.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14220 - 03/29/06 07:37 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
I understand the gist of what you mean. But there is an amount of illusion we are allowed to have without tilting into psychosis.

I think there is a very very thin line between someone who is clearly in contact with Divinity and someone who has become finatical. Razor thin.

For most of us. It's better not to be in such clear contact. Just clear contact with our own conscience is best smile and I don't think it hurts to give thanks to the subtle flow of Grace when it weaves into our lives, even if it is uncomprehensible. (or even imaginary to respect your point of view)

Whether I communicate with my own conscience or with some kind of oversoul, or a little of both...I just don't know. Beliefs are hopes. I can hope there is this oversoul guiding me. I'm allowed a little hope (or illusion) without being considered psychotic. Psychosis is more a dysfunctional state of mind rather than an attachement to belief. Psychosis is almost relative to society. In our society, religion and spirituality are allowed.

You don't need the hope of the guiding factor. I think either perspective is fine.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14221 - 03/30/06 07:41 PM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Justine wrote:
"I understand the gist of what you mean. But there is an amount of illusion we are allowed to have without tilting into psychosis."

Again I agree with you. But again I want to challenge you to move past the superficial.

It is perfectly fine for all parents to have the illusion that their children are attractive and intelligent so as to not drown them at birth. That illusion hurts no one and adds to the survival of the species.

But illusions that are used to create rules of ethics and morality. Rules that are turned into laws at least one of which carries the death penalty. Rules that affect a woman's control over her own body? These rise to a different level. I do not want someone deciding, because of an illusion, that I deserve the death penalty for rubbing my nose.

Justine wrote:
"I think there is a very very thin line between someone who is clearly in contact with Divinity and someone who has become finatical. Razor thin."

I think the difference isn't just razor thin ... it is invisible and undefinable. You are welcome to believe you are talking to god right up until you tell me that god wants me to turn down my stereo because it is too loud. Or you get onto television and proclaim the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans was god punishing the people for voting for a democrat or whatever. At that point sane and sentient people need to draw a line between harmess illusion and insanity.

Again ... what you and your conscience or god say to each other is privileged communication and I don't care and neither should anyone else.

The minute you, or anyone else, tries to impose that on me I draw a line in the sand and stand with Washington and Jefferson and a load of buckshot ready to defend my turf. If Christians, Moslems, etc. minded their own business no one would mind theirs.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14222 - 03/31/06 07:37 PM Re: information
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
Yes, I feel the same way and it's true that sane and sentient people need to draw the line between harmless spirituality and malignant spirituality. We need to recognize it in ourselves and in the people around us.

Need for harmless illusion is an interesting subject. Two years ago, I mistakenly explained Santa Claus to my eight year old son. I thought he was ready and we were breaching a topic on truth. Interesting conclusion. My son was angry with me. He decided after knowing the truth that he prefered the illusion of Santa Claus and we had to sort of pretend it never happened. It was like I had robbed him of his innocence.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#14223 - 03/31/06 11:18 PM Re: information
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Your son being angry with you for destroying the illusion is precisely the same reaction you have seen from adults in this forum when I puncture their illusions about their theology.

They all pretty much go through the same phases ending with anger and storming off.

No one wants to find out that the world is precisely what it is ... and that it is up to each individual to make good choices. That no one is going to yank them up by their pony tail and reward them for being decent or excuse them for being a little shop of horrors.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#14224 - 04/02/06 02:29 AM Re: information
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Hi DA: This is your challenge!! ? To an acknowledged Adiest?

Ok jjw004 lets assume you are correct.

1. Who created smallpox?
2. Who created Satan?
3. Who created the apple and the snake?
4. What evidence is there of a virgin birth?
5. What evidence is there of a resurrection?
6. Why do men have nipples?

There they are: Deal with them directly siting proof of each of your answers from any source other than an authorless mistranslated book.

Do you have the courage of your convictions or are you just trying to dodge the ball? Let us see.
-------------------------------------------------
Reply:
I know you are an educator from your past discussions and I know you teach some adult classes at Washington University so I wonder at your idea of a serious question that wants to test me?

All of which you speak are of man?s creation. They are words. I thought that you decided that our present state of being was a favor of Darwin?s evolution. If that is true then we can thank his theory for the answers to your questions. Also I am a little bored with the mystery you see in men?s nipples. Almost all male animals that I know of have nipples, ask Darwin?
So we can say with confidence that mankind or evolution created all the items you list. While some men were busy creating god others were hard at it creating his opponent- Satan. Why is this simple scene so hard for you to accept?

I think that on the religious side you confuse things a little. No one, no theologian or believer, contends there was a virgin birth. The issue is a virgin conception. No women remain a virgin after giving birth. As to the prospect of a virgin woman conceiving and getting pregnant that is documented fact. Rub a Dub of private parts has shown it to have happened. Sperm is relentless at finding its target.

How about the ?resurrection? which you must mean of Christ as some claim occurred following his crucifiction? Do you expect me to offer proof? The sources I have read over the years challenge this idea. Some claim he was not dead in the first place and others argue it was a charade. I need not defend this issue because it is not relevant to your denial of god and it is not in any way important to my keeping an open mind on the issue of a creator. Your questions are not up to your knowledge.
Any way, I was polite.
jjw

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.