Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 221573 times)

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #275 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Or a shocked unbelieving who got electronically done, eh? Thank goodness I am a Scots Presbyterian.
I'm not sure about the first sentence, but otherwise I'm happy for you.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #276 –
I just ran across something that I'd never heard about previously.

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case on corporate religious rights.

Quote
WASHINGTON — A challenge to part of President Obama's healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court's history.
Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-contraceptives-20140324,0,7435606.story#ixzz2wtLrej2b

Is anybody else surprised?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #277 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

I just ran across something that I'd never heard about previously.

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case on corporate religious rights.

Quote
WASHINGTON — A challenge to part of President Obama's healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court's history.
Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-contraceptives-20140324,0,7435606.story#ixzz2wtLrej2b

Is anybody else surprised?

Nope.

Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.

The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #278 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.

The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
And you are precisely the man to do it. Have it televised too, for the amusement of the world.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #279 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.

The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
And you are precisely the man to do it. Have it televised too, for the amusement of the world.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #280 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

Even worse, as this collective group of cu**s has already ruled that "corporations are people", it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they ruled in favor of their corporate masters.

The lot of them need to have their arsed whipped.
And you are precisely the man to do it. Have it televised too, for the amusement of the world.

A mere proletariat like myself would find that difficult.   :P   :cheers:

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #283 –
Let me dispel the idea that the world of religion can't get weirder. Yes, that's the Dalai Lama saying a prayer in the US Senate. What will conservative Christians do with this one?
[video]http://youtu.be/-fEfxuWP8pc[/video]

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #284 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Let me dispel the idea that the world of religion can't get weirder. Yes, that's the Dalai Lama saying a prayer in the US Senate. What will conservative Christians do with this one?
[video]http://youtu.be/-fEfxuWP8pc[/video]

Something like this :left:

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #286 –
But don't forget to turn your brains off before doing that.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #287 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

But don't forget to turn your brains off before doing that.

Where's the switch?
===================================================
There's a wonderful site, http://www.openbible.info/, that deals with things the Bible can teach us. Frankly, I think it should be openbabble.

Quote
4 Bible Verses about
Quantum Physics

Hebrews 11:3 ESV / 24 helpful votes

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Hebrews 11:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Helpful Not Helpful
Genesis 1:1-31 ESV / 5 helpful votes

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

John 11:25-26 ESV / 4 helpful votes

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #289 –
I didn't know Somer Valley was quite religious a radio.
They've been teaching me 'scientificness' of 'the Bible'. Amusing contrivance, :yawn:.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #290 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

What will conservative Christians do with this one?
[video]http://youtu.be/-fEfxuWP8pc[/video]

I dunno but the colour of the Lama's dress might be familiar to many Americans  :devil:

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #291 –
That fraud!
=========================================
This one shocked me...Buddhist violence!
Quote
A Buddhist monk looks at a group of policemen out side a vandalized house in Hlekuu, north of Yangon Myanmar, Saturday, April 5, 2014. Sectarian tensions flared in Hlekuu, following a personal dispute between a Buddhist and Muslim shopkeeper on Friday. Hundreds of police were deployed after Buddhist mobs started ransacking a three-story home owned by a Muslim where two Muslim boys at the center of the dispute were seeking shelter. Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million, has been grappling with religious violence since emerging from a half-century of military rule three years ago.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #295 –
My favourite colour as it happens and very popular at my monthly meeting!
"Quit you like men:be strong"
 

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #296 –
The 'quote' do-hickey is not working for me today and I tried everything, so to quote Ersi from months ago "Big things are not easy to understand."  Your repeated implications that you are in some sort of special category of people who are capable of understanding “big things” that others cannot, is very small of you.  I was hoping that one day you would lose this pomposity of yours, but apparently you have an ego that needs constant feeding. 

“Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories -  in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.” 

Are you purposely trying to baffle people with your bullshit?  Metaphysical is an austere sounding adult word for the child’s term ‘make-believe’.  The M-word is just like saying ‘what if?’.  Nobody has been there, so no one knows that it even exists and yet many people describe it quite precisely, including who lives there, its purpose and what it is like.  Unfortunately, the descriptions of the M-realm are so varied that it can really be whatever you want it to be or need it to be (just start fantasizing).  You, Eric, use the M-realm as a crutch to get you through this life, which is perfectly fine—some people actually need religion.  However, you speak of it to us as fact and the very last thing the M-realm is, is a fact.  Btw, this existence/reality can only be in the M-realm if you put it there in your own mind.  I’m sad to say that I doubt you would know reality if it slapped you in the face. 


“The physicist, if he is non-philosophical and careless in logic, may easily equate existence with detection and, conversely, non-detection with non-existence.” 

You don’t know what science is or how it works.  Science is the pursuit of the laws and facts of nature pertinent only to this reality/environment.  Show science another realm or reality and how to get there and they will relentlessly pursue the facts there as well.  Talk gibberish about spirits, ghosts and Gods in an untouchable realm (which (conveniently), is only untouchable so one can’t disprove it), and a scientist is really not interested, unless you find one that is a bit wishy-washy (philosophical).  Good science NEVER equates non-detection with non-existence!! Believers in God made this false deduction of science themselves because they fear science and have some pressing need to demean it.   If science wants to say something doesn’t exist, it has to stand up to the same rigors of every other scientific fact and be proven for a fact that it doesn’t exist (where do you get all this slanted nonsense?).  The Large Hadron Collider, was 40 years and $10 billion in the making just to prove or disprove that a fundamental but theoretical quantum particle (the Higgs boson), existed.  Theoretical physics said it had to exist or else much of quantum physics would have to be rewritten—as of 2013 it was proven to exist to the satisfaction of the global scientific community.  Science is not a butterfly collection type of hobby, Ersi--it is the most important, serious and exacting pursuit on this planet and leaves your religion and philosophy in the dust of their own insignificance (well….perhaps I exaggerate just a tad, but only a tad). 

“So, there are modes of existence. Objective existence is not the entire existence. There are ways to explore the non-objective mode of existence, but this is out of reach of physics. As I observed in the beginning, the philosopher discerns a clear distinction between non-existence and undetectable existence. This distinction is indiscernible for the physicist, if he is not a careful enough thinker, but I suppose I have shown clearly enough how this distinction itself is important. ” 

This is such slapdash hogwash I am loath to even comment on it.  (Sigh…), so in a few very short and full-of-holes paragraphs you have absolutely proven that, without a doubt, there ARE other modes of existence?  At best, you may have irrationally convinced yourself of this, but don’t throw out these broad sweeping statements at us like you were some sort of know-it-all.  The great thing about your make-believe existences, for you at least, is that no one (I don’t know why you constantly only choose physicists), can disprove them.  So now, you are making the mistakes that you wrongly accuse science of, by asserting that disprovability equals existence, which is simply illogical and absurd.  Science doesn’t play these meaningless games simply because there is no point or purpose to them.  In my opinion, science did religion a big favor by stating that a God need not have been invoked to create this universe, it would have created itself anyway.  Science doesn’t say that God didn’t do it, just that he wasn’t necessary (but after all, science wasn’t there). 

“These kinds of distinctions are arrived at by means of logical and conceptual philosophical analysis.  The metaphysical categories is an example of such analysis. It's a way to "detect the undetectable".” 

(God, give me the strength…)  I’ve read the convoluted logic of philosophical analysis as it relates to the M-realm and one would have to be quite desperate and want it to be true very badly in order to swallow it.  Despite all that our sciences have done to inform us of realities unknown to sense perception or naïve common sense, no one (philosophers admit), is able, using the normal touchstones of truth, to argue convincingly for the character of some ‘Ultimate Reality’ or for ‘Beings’ that exist in a supersensible or supernatural world.  What gives you alone, this extraordinary ability Ersi? 

James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #297 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

My favourite colour as it happens and very popular at my monthly meeting!

Word has reached me that a specific Scot, known for his ardent Protestant views, was seen wearing Red Socks/Shoes at his Orange Order meetings.



Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #298 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

You don’t know what science is or how it works.  ---- Good science NEVER equates non-detection with non-existence!!

Indeed. That's one of the characteristics by which to distinguish good science from the bad. Bad science exists and we have had examples of it in this thread (which you ignored, conveniently for yourself).

You don't sound very knowledgeable about science, so let's take a look at the good science, shall we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

What does the guy say? How do the scientists do it? They GUESS it! That's right! Now, this is precisely where rigorous philosophy, particularly metaphysics, helps scientists. Metaphysics is the art of forming logical guesses (called "propositions", that's a baby-step term in philosophy) that make sense and are likelier to lead to constructive realistic results rather than just going about it haphazardly and randomly. Philosophy educates the scientific guesses. An educated guess is logical and methodical, it minimises uncertainties and is able to prevent damage from empirical experiments if the scientist educates himself accordingly. In science they talk about the scientific method, but the concept of method as such is derived from the realm of philosophy and logic.

Conventional logic deals with certainties, yes or no, with no middle ground. There's the law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, and necessary conclusions from premises. All mathematics operates the same way. If math is a science, then so is logic (and philosophy incidentally consists of logic, nothing else). If math is not a science to you, then I have given much more attention to you than you are worth.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Science doesn’t say that God didn’t do it, just that he wasn’t necessary (but after all, science wasn’t there).

And philosophy says why and how God makes sense, the same way as infinity and zero make sense in math. There is some conceptual context for everyone where God is in fact absolutely necessary. Even Daniel Dennett (the neoatheist philosopher) says that in some context he believes in God. Namely, that God is a concept. Which is what everything is, philosophically. In philosophy, everything is a concept, and everything is approached through conceptual analysis, and the results of the analysis are necessary. Where I disagree with Dennett are his metaphysical premises compared to my metaphysical premises. Where I agree with him again is that we both have metaphysical premises - and so does everybody else, necessarily, as opposed to your "M-word is hogwash bullshit" nonsense.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

What gives you alone, this extraordinary ability Ersi?

Why do you think I am alone? Maybe I seem pretty much alone in these forums, but it's different in real life. And here too we have those who can keep track of my reasoning as well as those who can't. In fact, how many here can keep track of your reasoning? Or, to put it more bluntly, how many agree that you have a reasoning?

Your pomposity and certitude in ignorance is quite unique. I have not yet met anyone with such a deep lack of comprehension of metaphysics as yourself. Actually, I haven't even met you, so you are not real as per your own logic. Good for you!

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #299 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
Despite all that our sciences have done to inform us of realities unknown to sense perception or naïve common sense, no one (philosophers admit), is able, using the normal touchstones of truth, to argue convincingly for the character of some ‘Ultimate Reality’ or for ‘Beings’ that exist in a supersensible or supernatural world.

Which philosophers? And why do philosophers get to decide?

Most scientists come down on the atheistic side, but not all.