2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that's a pretty sad picture,
Two people in love in that view are simply having their love for each other pumped into
both of them by some external figure, so much for great romance, your view has us as
simple puppets bending to the will of god's whim.
Wouldn't that totally remove free will btw?
Also how many Christians do you think would agree with that view of the world?
I was speaking of love as an essence. And I believe I can speak for all Christians when I say that the substance or essence of love has as its original source, God our Creator.
If you can find a Christian that does not believe that, please point me in their direction. Maybe there are one or two on the planet but I would take great pleasure in debating them on it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDr.Strangeglove would have been proud of you.
You have the wrong boogie man.
Science advocates no such thing.
And it can tell us lots of useful things about how our societies should run.
For example it can, and does, give good solid reasons why living in an "atomized materialistic consumerist"
society is bad, and how and what could be done to fix that.
I agree that rampant consumerism ...[text shortened]... technology and knowledge.
There is no such thing as bad knowledge, just how it is used.
Originally posted by googlefudgeApart from the physical laws of the universe, science advocates very little. But a rampant, atomized, materialistic consumerism has been its inevitable (if unintended) side effect. It is no coincidence that modern science and capitalism co-evolved side by side.
You have the wrong boogie man.
Science advocates no such thing.
And it can tell us lots of useful things about how our societies should run.
For example it can, and does, give good solid reasons why living in an "atomized materialistic consumerist"
society is bad, and how and what could be done to fix that.
I agree that rampant consumerism ...[text shortened]... technology and knowledge.
There is no such thing as bad knowledge, just how it is used.
All of science is directed at understanding how the universe works. That understanding, though, is not an end in itself. It is directed toward the construction of greater technologies whose purpose is to allow us to control the universe and bend it toward our will for our particular use. This entails a necessary dualistic separation of man from the natural world (an alienation from Being itself) as one of subject/object. Thus, technology is not merely the sum collection of our tools, but, rather, it is a particular way of looking at the world, a way of 'enframing' it, where the universe is reduced to 'standing reserve' to be used up and exploited for our sole use.
With the old religions having been displaced, greater technologies, greater levels of extraction and the myth of permanent growth have been codified into the new religion of technological determinism. Our science will eventually save us (allegedly), even as its technology further alienates us from the world, enslaves us to its processes and threatens to subvert our very humanity. I think the cure may be worse than whatever disease it purports to be curing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettTotal unsubstantiated bull, yet again.
Apart from the physical laws of the universe, science advocates very little. But a rampant, atomized, materialistic consumerism has been its inevitable (if unintended) side effect. It is no coincidence that modern science and capitalism co-evolved side by side.
All of science is directed at understanding how the universe works. That understanding, thoug ...[text shortened]... very humanity. I think the cure may be worse than whatever disease it purports to be curing.
(and science does not promote permanent growth, in fact science and scientists think that's it's nuts and
and physically impossible to sustain. your beef is with economists not scientists. As is mine.)
I would love to debate with you as to why, but evidence suggests you pay no attention whatsoever to any
counter arguments against you.
If you want to have a proper debate where both sides enter with an open mind, meaning they would be
prepared to change their mind if presented with suitable argument and/or evidence then fine.
If however you are not prepared to properly engage in debate, like last time, then I have no interest in
talking to you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoAnd what is that supposed to mean?
Dr.Strangeglove would have been proud of you.
Am I advocating M.A.D.?
Singing the praises of nuclear weapons?
Extolling constant growth?
Arguing for the destruction of nature?
try again with an actual thought out post.
Rather than a pithy insult that doesn't stick.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidLove is an emotion generated by our brains. There is no 'essence' of love, no tangible
Two people in love in that view are simply having their love for each other pumped into
both of them by some external figure, so much for great romance, your view has us as
simple puppets bending to the will of god's whim.
Wouldn't that totally remove free will btw?
Als be there are one or two on the planet but I would take great pleasure in debating them on it.
(or intangible) thing beyond brain states in the minds of suitably sentient beings.
And I still think that there would be many Christians who would disagree with you,
whether there are any on this site is a different matter.
EDIT: btw is anyone else getting crushing lag on RHP? the rest of the net is running
smoothly but RHP seems to be running incredibly slowly.
3 edits
Originally posted by KrapsparovCompulsary love? I suppose it depends on how you quantify love. For example, how was Christ showing love when he used a whip against the money changers? When Christ was asked about loving your neighbor the example he gave was the Good Samaritan. Interestingly, the Good Samaritan SHOULD have been a natural enemy of the man he helped simply due to his race but he inexplicably helped him anyway. Also, the two never conversed and were complete strangers. Such love has less to do with an emotional bond than a simple recognition that as a human being they have worth and we should treat them the way we wish to be treated. In short, such love is more of a choice than a feeling. That means when giving someone a swift kick in the arse when you think you would need one had you done the same things they did to deserve it. It would be akin to punishing your child when he needs it.
I have never been overly taken by the love that Christ mentions.
Compulsory love is as far removed from love as anything can be.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI know hundreds if not thousands of Christians and not a one of them adheres to your opinion, I assure you.
Love is an emotion generated by our brains. There is no 'essence' of love, no tangible
(or intangible) thing beyond brain states in the minds of suitably sentient beings.
And I still think that there would be many Christians who would disagree with you,
whether there are any on this site is a different matter.
EDIT: btw is anyone else getting ...[text shortened]... RHP? the rest of the net is running
smoothly but RHP seems to be running incredibly slowly.
Maybe in your mind we should change Paul's famous epistle and word it something like this:
So now faith, hope, and [an emotional response generated by a chemical reaction in our brain] abide, these three; but the greatest of these is [an emotional response generated by a chemical reaction in our brain].
Lovely. I'm sure you'd like to believe there are countless Christians who support you in this notion, but.. oddly I've never met or even heard of one.
And I guess if we really want to change the words to your liking, we'd have to change "faith" to be something like "a blind, ignorant decision to believe in something there is no evidence for."
Originally posted by googlefudgeHere we go again...
Total unsubstantiated bull, yet again.
(and science does not promote permanent growth, in fact science and scientists think that's it's nuts and
and physically impossible to sustain. your beef is with economists not scientists. As is mine.)
I would love to debate with you as to why, but evidence suggests you pay no attention whatsoever to any
cou ...[text shortened]... red to properly engage in debate, like last time, then I have no interest in
talking to you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettI think exactly the same thing every time I see one of your posts.
Here we go again...
Thing is last time around I presented reasons for my positions, you asserted yours as fact over
and over before going off in a huff, after I obliterated your arguments.
If you want to genuinely talk about it fine.
Till then stuff it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidWell that makes a good tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the billions of Christians in the world....
I know hundreds if not thousands of Christians and not a one of them adheres to your opinion, I assure you.
Maybe in your mind we should change Paul's famous epistle and word it something like this:
So now faith, hope, and [an emotional response generated by a chemical reaction in our brain] abide, these three; but the greatest of these is ing like "a blind, ignorant decision to believe in something there is no evidence for."
All emotions are simply different states of our brains, all our thoughts and feelings are.
This isn't opinion, mine or anyone else's, this is an observable reality of neuroscience.
This doesn't take away from the experience of having them, or render them unimportant.
It does mean that there is no 'stuff' of love that gets pumped into us by some imaginary god.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat's how I roll, Holmes. You don't like it, then don't respond to my posts. I certainly won't miss you.
I think exactly the same thing every time I see one of your posts.
Thing is last time around I presented reasons for my positions, you asserted yours as fact over
and over before going off in a huff, after I obliterated your arguments.
If you want to genuinely talk about it fine.
Till then stuff it.
Originally posted by AgergIt pains me to try and wrap my head round the idea...
It pains me to try and wrap my head round the idea that grown adults these days, after "witnessing some personal, yet seemingly extraordinary phenomenon", compelling enough *for them* to consider more than just a vague possibility there is some sort of god out there then go and immerse themselves in a belief system founded by people with primitive morals and p ...[text shortened]... .."
[hidden]Or insert daft beliefs from other religions if you like[/hidden]
??? 😕
Solution: stop trying to do that.
...grown adults these days, after "witnessing some personal, yet seemingly extraordinary phenomenon", compelling enough *for them* to consider more than just a vague possibility there is some sort of god out there then go and immerse themselves in a belief system founded by people with primitive morals and primitive science/insight.
What's your timeline of acceptance here? Would you have any problem accepting a belief system if you heard about it within two years of its origin? Two months, two days, two minutes, two seconds?
Why such a large move...
I think you overstate the Eureka! moment of such conversions as what happen in reality. Assuming a chap has had some exposure to the biblical story line, it is doubtful that his acceptance of the salvation gift is on equal footing as his acceptance of the veracity of each story. Beside the point, really, when one considers that salvation is not dependent upon acceptance of ANY precursor to the cross.
Of course, you are spot on in your desire to link confidence in the Bible with the offer. If, indeed, the stories were knowingly concocted in attempt to deceive, one can place no confidence in any offers emanating from such sources. However, the mentioned chap can just as easily forestall judgement or assessment of the stories while accepting the salvation gift on the mere basis of the beauty of the latter's argument/claim in juxtaposition to his perspectives on life.
He may never come to an acceptance of the biblical stories (until face to face with said luminaries in the after life), and yet remain firmly and steadfastly a member of the Book of Life. It must be pointed out, a man can only accept in whole what he at minimum accepts in part.
Originally posted by googlefudgeScience is man-made. Get it off that pedestal.
You have the wrong boogie man.
Science advocates no such thing.
And it can tell us lots of useful things about how our societies should run.
For example it can, and does, give good solid reasons why living in an "atomized materialistic consumerist"
society is bad, and how and what could be done to fix that.
I agree that rampant consumerism ...[text shortened]... technology and knowledge.
There is no such thing as bad knowledge, just how it is used.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettWell so long as its clear that you're the intellectual wimp who can't substantiate his
That's how I roll, Holmes. You don't like it, then don't respond to my posts. I certainly won't miss you.
positions but restates them ad nauseum despite them being not only rebutted but
refuted, and runs away from any actual debate...
Then sure, I wont respond to your posts.... Ill just refute all your arguments for
everyone else's benefit, and otherwise ignore you utterly.
Incidentally your picture should be a big yellow chicken... just sayin...