"Consider the idea of God...."

[Sebastian Benitez]

Resuming, people have a god because they need a god. That's the existence of god, only in people's mind and heart. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.

[Tim Craig]

Not to mention it's been pushed by "governments" since primordial times. God told me I should be king. Mess with me and the gods will have you for lunch. Be good little serfs and put up with all the crap my government gives you and you'll live in paradise in the next life. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.

[Stan Shannon]

Sebastián Benítez wrote: people have a god because they need a god. That's the existence of god, only in people's mind and heart Yet that is as profound a leap of faith as any that a religious person is likely to make. Scientifically speaking, it is far too premature to be making such statements with absolute certainty. You believe that because you want to beleive it, not because there has been some sort of indisputable set of proofs established for such beliefs. I'm not a deeply religious individual myself, and I would certainly agree to the contention that science has largely undermined the "myths" that most religions are based upon. Yet the concept of God as a creator has in no way been eliminated as a real possibility. For example, we know that consciousness exists. If we can believe that the universe sprang from some primordial singularity, or if we can believe that the universe is in some kind of perpetual state of flux with cosmic bubbles blinking in and out of existence eternally, why is it so difficult to imagine that consicousness might have preceeded or instigated the rest rather than vice versa? If a universe of matter can explode out of nothingness, or exist in perpetual flux, why not something as emphmereal as consciousness...as God?

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Stan Shannon wrote: why is it so difficult to imagine that consicousness might have preceeded or instigated the rest rather than vice versa? To imagine it isn't hard at all. Believing it is another story. -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?

[JoeSox]

Ian Darling wrote: We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Children are innocent A teenager's fucked up in the head Adults are even more fucked up And elderlies are like children Will there be another race To come along and take over for us? Maybe martians could do Better than we've done We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! My friend says we're like the dinosaurs Only we are doing ourselves in Much faster than they Ever did We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We will make great pets We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We will make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! We'll make great pets! - Porno for Pyros :) Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest

[Stan Shannon]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Believing it is another sto What is believable?

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Things you can observe (either directly or by proxy) and "put a finger on". -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?

[Stan Shannon]

But everything you perceive is nothing more than an illusion of reality. It is simply impossible to experience reality directly. Sounds, colors, odors, all of those things we sense are psychological interpretations of realty. They are not reality itself. In fact, I would argue that the only aspect of reality that you experience directly is consciousness itself. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our observations are valid. We have to base that on faith.

[Stan Shannon]

So, who is to blame for that? Religion or government?

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

I didn't know you were such an existentialist Stan! Stan Shannon wrote: Sounds, colors, odors, all of those things we sense are psychological interpretations of realty. They are not reality itself. Yes, they are interpreted, but that doesn't invalidate them. Just because a color blind person interpret green as red, doesn't take away the fact that he's observing a color. He's just unsure which color it is. Stan Shannon wrote: In fact, I would argue that the only aspect of reality that you experience directly is consciousness itself. If you are willing to go that far, then how can you be sure your consciousness is your own? -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?

[Daniel Ferguson]

Stan Shannon wrote: So, who is to blame for that? Religion or government? Arguably, religion and government are different aspects of the same thing -- namely one group of people controlling others.

Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1

« eikonoklastes »

[J Dunlap]

Tim Craig wrote: God told me I should be king. Mess with me and the gods will have you for lunch. That's called taking God's name in vain, and unfortunately, it's been done many times in history. But all you have to do is look in the Bible - the core teaching of Christianity - and see that this misuse of power is not in accord with what it says.

**"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

FLUID UI Toolkit | FloodFill in C# & GDI+**

[Stan Shannon]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I didn't know you were such an existentialist Stan! I am many things to many people :rolleyes: Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: He's just unsure which color it is. But the point is that color itself has no reality external to the mind that is perceiving it. Certainly, we may be able to ascertain scientifically that there is something we might be able to measure as electromagnetic radiation and that certain frequencies of that radiation correlates with what we perceive as color. That doesn't change the fact that the color is not really there. The problem is that we can never really be certain where the illusion ends and reality begins. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: then how can you be sure your consciousness is your own? I'm not. I often entertain the possiblity that there is, in fact, only one consciousness, and we all share in it. We each percieve our own consciousness to be unique merely because we are each experiencing our illusion of reality from a slightly different perspective within the context of that universal consiousness.

[Stan Shannon]

Daniel Ferguson wrote: namely one group of people controlling others. Sort of a fundamental requirement for civilization, isn't it? Still, it seems odd to me that most seem to consider religion to be the primary culprit. That we need less religion and more government. Why not less government and more religion?

[Ian Darling]

Stan Shannon wrote: Sort of a fundamental requirement for civilization, isn't it? Not really, just that there hasn't been much opportunity for a politically anarchist state. -- Ian Darling "The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything." - Joel Spolsky

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

Stan Shannon wrote: I often entertain the possiblity that there is, in fact, only one consciousness, and we all share in it. And this begs the question; is it aware of its own existance? If its not, does it really exist? The thing is though; if we don't explore whatever it is we're observing, there's no reason to exist - or in more concrete words - to live. I feel that by saying that God, or what-/whoever, is in control of everything, then there's nothing to explore really - I see little or no point in pushing forward and try to see beyond our limitations. -- Watcha' gonna do, when Hulkamania runs wild on you!?

[Stan Shannon]

Ian Darling wrote: a politically anarchist sta You first! :)

[Stan Shannon]

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I feel that by saying that God, or what-/whoever, is in control of everything, then there's nothing to explore really - I see little or no point in pushing forward and try to see beyond our limitations. I absolutely agree. However, I do consider it entirely possible that much of what we consider to be relgious in nature will turn out to be scientific. To reiterrate my earlier point, if all it takes to generate consciousness is some sort of physical infrastructure, and if we do not yet fully comprehend the underlieing physical infrastructure of space time, why is it such a unbelievable notion that what ever that underlieing infrastructure is, it is capable of supporting a conscious state?

[Daniel Ferguson]

You know... if i could have my own little private island, lots of canned food and access to the internet ... I'd be gone in a moment. :-D

Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1

« eikonoklastes »

[Daniel Ferguson]

Stan Shannon wrote: Why not less government and more religion? A secular government is far, far better than religious rule because at least there can be some checks and balances in a secular government. We can scrutinize the behaviour of our rulers and vote them out every few years. With a religious ruler, all they have to do is say that 'god' told them to rule and we don't have any right to question them.

Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1

« eikonoklastes »