"Consider the idea of God...."

[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 »

[Stan Shannon]

Still, there is a fundamental problem. The only way to have a secular state is to have separation of church and state. But the only way you can have separation of church and state is if, in fact, both church and state exist. If you lack either, the one remaining must assume the role of the one missing and you are right back to square one - a government that is both, simultaneously. A secular state, if it is given or acquires full responsibility to manage the moral agenda of a society, even if a specific 'God' is never invoked, none the less has the power to condemn the 'unrightious', the unbelievers, in an extra-legal, quasi-religiouse sense. I see no advantage to such a political system, yet I fear we are coming dangerously close to just such a situation. If anarchy could be managed I might be willing to give it a try. But 'managed anarchy' is sort of an oxymoron, isn't it?

[Russell Morris]

Stan Shannon wrote: Yet that is as profound a leap of faith as any that a religious person is likely to make. True, it's a leap of faith - but it's not nearly as big a jump to say 'I don't see evidence and I believe that's because it doesn't exist' as it is to say 'I don't see any evidence and I believe that it does exist'. However, the skeptic must always hold that 'absense of evidence does not necessarily indicate evidence of absense'. A skeptic, in my opinion, must always be completely comfortable with being able to say 'I don't know', which is I think the proper opinion to hold concerning God. Most people, however, are simply uncomfortable with this - they must have what they think are answers to life's tough questions. Many professed atheists are in this camp, eschewing the 'absense of evidence' mantra. Personally, I don't think that there's a lick of evidence that any 'God', as professed by any religion I'm familiar with, has a chance of actually being real. However, you can't really test for something like this. It's like asking 'Would the moon be made of purple cheese if my parents had named me Mortimer?' The strong-atheist says 'absolutely not' The agnostic or weak-atheist says 'almost certainly not' The 'spiritual' person dodges the definiteness of the question The religious zealot looks to his holy book/teachings/leaders for the answer they are supposed to believe or, failing specific mention in their holy works, ensures that the answer they come up with doesn't violate an religous beliefs. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy

[Daniel Ferguson]

Stan Shannon wrote: But the only way you can have separation of church and state is if, in fact, both church and state exist. If you lack either, the one remaining must assume the role of the one missing and you are right back to square one - a government that is both, simultaneously. I've never thought about that before and it's a fascinating idea. I'm against (organized) religion, but I couldn't exist without my 'personal system of belief' (even though there is no god in it). I'll have to think about it more. Stan Shannon wrote: A secular state, if it is given or acquires full responsibility to manage the moral agenda of a society There is a justification for morality without religion, and arguably it is stronger because it isn't based on opposing or changing beliefs. I think a political system such as that would be better, as long as it stayed out of the people's personal lives and stuck to managing the state. Stan Shannon wrote: But 'managed anarchy' is sort of an oxymoron, isn't it? :laugh: Perhaps managed anarchy is what a pure/true democracy would be.

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 »

[Tim Craig]

I like to think of it as the "unholy" alliance. You give me their souls and I'll give you their bodies. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.

[Tim Craig]

Actually, the implcation of my statement that the mechanism wss set up long, long before the christian bible. The fact that you now interpret the christian bible as disavowing such an alliance doesn't negate the fact that christian countries have used the model for 2000 years now just like their "pagan" predecessors. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.

[Tim Craig]

Sebastián Benítez wrote: people have a god because they need a god What people need is answers to fundamental quesitons. Many of the fundamental quesitons that gods were invented to answer have now been addressed by science for anyone wiht half a brain. Yet, instead of just saying that we don't have answers for these questions, the superstitious lot still continue to invent "god" answers instead of just admitting their ignorance. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.