4 edits
@Suzianne saidOn my side, I don't mind a little falsity now and then as long as it seems beneficial in context. Too nuanced?
The sheer irony from this website washes over me every day and usually refuses to yield. No matter. It has no logical claim to rule over me. I refuse to submit to falsity.
(My late Irish Grandmother would call that "a little white lie." And isn't that essentially what the Scripture-promoters of whatever religions have been involved with?)
Earlier today I upgraded my wardrobe a little with some thinner apparel to go along with the current blast-furnace conditions where I live. Some of the shirts fit a little snugger than I used to like, but I told myself: "OK, so that's more of a superhero fit." 😉
@Philokalia saidAs Suzianne said, it trashes science.
How?
We don't have all the answers, but creationism is antithetical to what we do know about our origins and evolution as a species.
@KellyJay saidOf course I can't answer for Ghost, but a psychotic, judgmental bully-God based on the shadows of human psychology is quite a different proposition from a Humble Host Who splashes out the Cosmos just to see what might happen. 😉
Holding you back from what? What do you think you are missing out on if God created you? Is it keeping you back from total autonomy? Do you think this world, where everyone acts with autonomy, is something to aspire to, or would a common set of morals that prioritize love be an improvement over our current state of affairs?
@Arkturos saidGod is good we are not, what do you think a holy righteous God should do with people who don’t even acknowledge their sins or God?
Of course I can't answer for Ghost, but a psychotic, judgmental bully-God based on the shadows of human psychology is quite a different proposition from a Humble Host Who splashes out the Cosmos just to see what might happen. 😉
1 edit
@KellyJay saidAs probably mentioned previously, I don't believe the same things you seem to believe.
God is good we are not, what do you think a holy righteous God should do with people who don’t even acknowledge their sins or God?
Have you ever considered the mental substrate in which beliefs occur?
@Arkturos saidIt doesn’t matter what you and I believe in; God created the heavens and the earth and all things in them. So reality has been designed by God; we can accept reality or not, but the consequences within it, whether we are correct or not, are real for good and bad. So, it does not matter how fervently we believe, if what we do is only that the object of our beliefs is either true or not, and with that, the results. It’s best to focus on where we are wrong rather than trying to confirm our bias as correct. We can be deceived if we only compare reality to things we want to be true, without testing our faith to discover where we err. We will then find what we like if that is all we seek.
As probably mentioned previously, I don't believe the same things you seem to believe.
Have you ever considered the mental substrate in which beliefs occur?
@Arkturos saidActually not at all.
May I ask if you consider the Roman Catholic Church to be trashers of science?
Any church who finances research telescopes on Kitt Peak here in AZ can't be all bad.
Oh, sorry, my bad, the Vatican's telescope is on Mount Graham. The VATT.
The NSF funds the 'scopes on Kitt Peak.
2 edits
@Philokalia saidNot arguing with you about what is rather obvious.
@Suzianne
They are historically highly relevant to the shared American heritage, and people who are unfamiliar with this will not understand being an American very well. I think it's all completely acceptable.
There is no clear violation where the federal government is violating it by respecting an institution of religion or merging with a religion.
Just like ho ...[text shortened]... er aspects of the American heritage that has shaped us withotu explicit endorsement of the religion.
Besides this:
The "shared American experience" hasn't exactly been this "Shining city on the hill" Reagan talked about.
@Arkturos saidDidn't have you down as a conspiracy theorist on my bingo card.
Creationism just needs an upgrade -- to Enlightenment-era Deism, for instance, or maybe something beyond that but in that direction.
In addition to "God the Clockmaker":
Why not a "God the Gardener" who just likes to see things grow and fall and for planets and galaxies to bash into each other once in a while?
Or a God who prepared the "Magic Crystal Tank" of the Co ...[text shortened]... ertions that some (locals of Earth) might depend upon either for self-care or the control of others.
On the other hand, everything comes down to control for you, yeah?
Anything you wanna talk about?
@diver saidThanks for making me look this up.
I wonder what percentage of human strife would be irradiated if there were no religions.
Oxford has down as definition 2:
"illuminate (something) by or as if by shining light on it." I was only thinking of the (nuclear) radiation definition.
As written, good point.
@Arkturos saidBut neither one exists, so....
Of course I can't answer for Ghost, but a psychotic, judgmental bully-God based on the shadows of human psychology is quite a different proposition from a Humble Host Who splashes out the Cosmos just to see what might happen. 😉
1 edit
@Arkturos saidTry again,. only speaking plainly.
As probably mentioned previously, I don't believe the same things you seem to believe.
Have you ever considered the mental substrate in which beliefs occur?
If you think he's a nut job, come on and say it.
Except that might be, you know.... the 'H' word.