RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes

RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

MisterPervert -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:39:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord This disproof works for any form of immortality. You can't speak of immortality without defining a few things about time. Science hasn't to my knowledge answered two basic questions about time: where does it come from and where does it go? (Assuming it comes and goes anywhere)

ThinkingKitten -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:39:53 PM)
FR here: Getting back to the question at hand: as said before, if the folks who want the scene are happy with it, then the rest of us should leave 'em be. But, also, to toss my 50c in: priests and nuns are inventions of mankind, particularly of the Church in Rome. And look at the phenomenal number of comedy shows that have revolved around them. Some of the best coming from the British Isles, I might add. Not that I'm biased or anything.

Perplex -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin The Flagellists (as a religious sect) no longer exist. They were a Catholic group, and were banned a few centuries ago. Not sure that it matters, but there are two groups, one german and one in japan who are reviving the Flagelists (wow is that how you spell that...I'd have stuck an O in there somewhere, mebbe with a prybar) ideals, now while most likely not sactioned by rome, they probably do have thier own team jersey's with sponsors on the back.. STAPLES Flogging team vrs the Coca-Cola Whippers...the mind gapes at the money to be made just on the pay-per-view rights.

Stephann -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:45:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Briefly, as there is no proof that God does, or does not exist, to assert either is to accept such a position on faith. The argument that atheists use that one should not believe, because there is no proof, requires belief that God does not exist; the same logic that defies the existence of God, also defies the non-existence of God. It really just boils down to what you want to believe, either way. Rather, athiests argue that you shouldn't believe because there's no reason to. The same reason one would argue that you're not actually a robot from the planet Mars on a peace mission who lost his memory in the crash. Now, this isn't to say that you should deny the possibility, should evidence be presented- however, so far, the only arguments for the religions have been entirely self-serving. Further, they take on beliefs that add even more assumptions, further damning reason. There is a disproof for God, btw. If you take a grandular-space approximated black box, apply all possibly combinations over the course of infinity, one finds it almost certain for death. The alternative is stasis. This disproof works for any form of immortality. PS- I almost forgot. Stasis can only happen for one being in the universe. (In other words, everything in the universe must die, with an extraordinarily slim possibility of a single being, instead of dying in the proper sense, just stopping. So it's, by definition, dead, just not.. broken apart. Sort of like a well-perserved body.) Right... atheists argue that one cannot believe in God, because one cannot prove God exists. Yet, this is not proof of the negative; to state "God does not exist" is an assertion that also requires proof. You can't slide or spin that statement either way; to state God exists, requires belief. To state God does not exists, requires belief. The only statement that does not require belief is "I cannot prove or disprove God, thus I do not know if God exists or not." As the concept of God, as we tend to debate it, refers to a being or power that is greater than any in the universe, efforts to define and limit the scope of such a being using this universe's laws is futile. A thousand years ago, it was quite impossible with current technology to prove or disprove that the moon was made of cheese. Today, we have that capacity; perhaps someday we will possess the means to actually prove or disprove God. Until that day, the wisest statement to make is that of two people curiously looking at the moon, and wondering what it 'could' be made of. Any other assertion, is fallacy. Regards, Stephan

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:45:53 PM)
The evolution of a person's personal religious framework and perspective--including his or her belief or lack thereof--is a most fascinating topic of conversation. I have had several such discussions with my slave. Curiously enough, often the discussion comes about on the heels of a scene. One of the constant attractions I have for the lifestyle is its persistent spiritual potential.

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:46:41 PM)
Alright. I have one I like, mentioned in post 58. Finite Black Box Over Infinite Time: Take a black box. Dim its boundries as being greater than any level that the universe could expand to. Dim contents as being either grandular or approximated finely as grandular. Observe infinite time. Note all possibilities, including death conditions, will eventually be fulfilled. Conclude that all that are able to die do. Conclude all that are unable of dying are not, by definition, alive. There's another that's more complex. It's more satisfying, though. Differentiating over the Quantum Reality Theory: Dim QRT. Consider possiblities in which a God exists versus all realities as a ratio. Apply Laplace as appropriate in finding the limit. Edit: I came back and reread this.. the DotQRT had "versus the one's that don't" or something like that. It's been corrected.

Bobkgin -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Even sentience, my friend, is a religious concept at heart. The idea that the chemical processes that refer to self are somehow different from anything else in this aspect. How many things aren't self-referential? Chemical processes do not explain the uniqueness of personality. If the scientific process includes the ability to repeat endlessly a process and obtain a predictable result, then the explanation that chemical processes generate self-awareness fails the test. There is more to thinking than chemicals. Why this thought and not another? Why this mood and not another? Why, when faced with similar situations, can I respond in totally different ways if I so choose? How does a body know which chemicals to release so I can work through a mathematical problem, rather than releasing chemicals in a random fashion thus resulting in cognitive dysfunction? You are using three-dimensional bio-chemistry to explain a four-dimensional construct: our personality. I submit there are aspects of being four-dimensional (continuity of existence being one of them) that we either do not understand clearly, or is beyond the reach of science as it exists today. Just as I argue with fundamentalists that because we haven't found all the answers today, doesn't mean the answers will never be found, I also argue this with the atheists, who are just as sure of their positiona s the Fundamentalists are of theirs. To me, both camps exhibit a rush to judgement. The universe is awfully big, very complex, and we've barely begun to understand it. Or our place in it.

Perplex -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:49:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord While this idea is incredibly stupid, because humans only seek truth as a mode for happiness, that's a very N. American viewpoint, the concept of happiness as a requirement to life is a very USA idea, if you travel through Europe and talk with people, the ideals of survival (food shelter, work etc) are of heavier importance than being happy, though you could argue if you're fed, housed and employed you're more than likely happy. I don't mean to be a prick about splitting this hair, I say it to explain a lot of the reasons is viewed in the US as it is, because of how it was brought over from europe...where reliigon is both the cause of unhappiness and the sustaining force to get people through unhappiness (times of trial) as the US passed the cultural bill that Happiness was a right, it's too easy to see only the negatives of religon

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MisterPervert quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord This disproof works for any form of immortality. You can't speak of immortality without defining a few things about time. Science hasn't to my knowledge answered two basic questions about time: where does it come from and where does it go? (Assuming it comes and goes anywhere) It's a construct. It goes where ever one claims it to go, which may be entirely arbitrary.

Perplex -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Nowhere, does he say to 'forget' the rest of the world beyond God. That'd be impossible anyway; the joy and love that people experience is from God. Everything we do with people we love, is part of God. wow that was really beautiful, remarkably kind...who'd have thunk it. Nicely done sir.

jaymckenas -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:55:19 PM)
اْسِم I recently wrote a paper for a College Course about the nature of the Islamic faith. While it may be a tad bit off the course of the initial post, it certainly falls under the categories of religion and the current context of the discussion. Islam literally can be translated from arabic as carrying the meaning to submit. In this case, it is the act of submitting one's self to Allah (God). Obviously in our terms it is Dom/sub, not God/sub, but the transitivity of the relationship, the love, and the connection of returning the love to the submitting, is a very interesting parallel. If you look to the fact that Allah is loving, and loves each and every one of those who submit themselves to live as he has decreed, then you can see the slight draw there is towards the notion of submission, regardless of whom to. The retroactive nature of a D/s relationship mirrors that of the retroactive relationship of a parrisioner and his God-of-choice. It is my opinion that perhaps the psychological nature of a "Church Scene", the drive behind it, is the vulnerability, confession, discipline, and submission, that can all be associated with faith in many regards. Therefore, some individuals subconsciously absorb the underlying D/s themes or ideologies found in religion, and then perhaps this manifests itself, ultimately, as a fetish. Whether or not this view will be received well should be interesting, I am wondering if I even have made sense up to this point... It is merely a theory of mine as to why some individuals develop a "church scene" kink. Let me know what you think? Peace Upon You. Jayson

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:02:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Right... atheists argue that one cannot believe in God, because one cannot prove God exists. Athiests argue that God is unlikely. I say that "God does not exist" because there's no reason to believe it, in the same way you would tell your friend that he's not actually a Martian robot on a peace mission. You don't have proof- it's just contrary to logic, via Vulcan's. Point being, they may actually believe in the truth. It's just that they probably don't and their reasons for believing it are entirely unreasonable. (This is to say, your friend might actually be a robitic Martian. But he might think he is just because he watched Mission to Mars or something one too many times.) quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Yet, this is not proof of the negative; to state "God does not exist" is an assertion that also requires proof. "God does not exist" is normally just short for saying, "There's no reason to believe God exists". Saying the couple of extra words, though, too often leads to, "But there's no reason to believe God doesn't exist!", which you're arguing. The response, "So it's silly to just come up with it and say it's true" is often ignored by the religious. I provided two proofs, btw. quote: You can't slide or spin that statement either way; to state God exists, requires belief. To state God does not exists, requires belief. The only statement that does not require belief is "I cannot prove or disprove God, thus I do not know if God exists or not. Again, the athiest is saying that there's no reason to believe it, not that it's a fact. (Often.) quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann As the concept of God, as we tend to debate it, refers to a being or power that is greater than any in the universe, efforts to define and limit the scope of such a being using this universe's laws is futile. Any being that interacts with our universe is, by definition, part of it. quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann A thousand years ago, it was quite impossible with current technology to prove or disprove that the moon was made of cheese. Today, we have that capacity; perhaps someday we will possess the means to actually prove or disprove God. We can readily say such a thing today. But what will ever stop the argument, "You don't understand! He's simply beyond everything! Your logic doesn't apply!"? You could build a super AI that could, elequently, state just how pathetic of an argument that is, but logic just doesn't reach such individuals. quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Until that day, the wisest statement to make is that of two people curiously looking at the moon, and wondering what it 'could' be made of. Any other assertion, is fallacy. Unless you have a logical reason to believe it's not made of cheese. Such as, you might say landing on it proves it's not. Still, I fnd it harder to argue that the moon isn't cheese than there isn't God. The argument about God is on the nature of reality, not the nature of a distant object.

ChainedExistence -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:12:57 PM)
I always had fantasies about being naked on the alter table...being flogged for my sins...but I don't think the minister would appreciate knowing that's where my mind was wandering. So, if I want to play with that idea a little outside of the church, and worship at the feet of Master in the privacy of my own home...somehow I think that's a better alternative.

Stephann -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:13:18 PM)
And the irony, is that we often go to great lengths we go to prove something, that we cannot prove. I think my final statement on this topic would be that, for me, it's impossible to imagine that God does not exist. The mere fact that we do do exist, and possess the capacity to reason, suggests that we couldn't 'randomly' have occurred. That's a faith based statement, as have yours been. Your 'proof' reminds me of Zeno of Elea. By suggesting something is highly improbable, doesn't prove anything. It only asserts that it's improbable. Atheism is defined as one who believes God does not exist. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. - American Heritage Dictionary Agnosticsm is defined as one who believes God does not likely exist. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. I highly doubt either of us are likely to change our positions on this topic, beyond this exchange, though. Please have a lovely evening. Stephan

SimplyMichael -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:16:25 PM)
I don't believe in god and he walked up and held out his hand I wouldn't shake it. Anyone with infinite power who created polio and MS deserves nothing but scorn. I used to say as a kid if I found out god really existed I would raise an army to fight he/she/it.

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Finite Black Box Over Infinite Time: Take a black box. Dim its boundries as being greater than any level that the universe could expand to. Dim contents as being either grandular or approximated finely as grandular. Observe infinite time. Note all possibilities, including death conditions, will eventually be fulfilled. Conclude that all that are able to die do. Conclude all that are unable of dying are not, by definition, alive. A most interesting construct. However, it has several internal contradictions, not the least of which is the contradiction of a finite box over infinite time (which renders the box itself infinite). Additionally, the application of the construct is limited to the universe, which elminates its utility in considering an entity which, by definition, must have an existence beyond the universe.

Stephann -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I don't believe in god and he walked up and held out his hand I wouldn't shake it. Anyone with infinite power who created polio and MS deserves nothing but scorn. I used to say as a kid if I found out god really existed I would raise an army to fight he/she/it. That's a whole other ball of wax, one that frankly I think would get hot and personal if we debated. No offense intended. Regards, Stephan

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:21:31 PM)
Again, I did provide two proofs.. I typically see "athiesm" as "God almost certainly doesn't exist", while I typically see "agnosticism" as "God might exist, God might not", closer to the 50/50 point. I typically see "religious" as "God almost certainly exists". (Yes, there are athiests who aren't 100% that God doesn't exist and religious that aren't 100% sure God does exist. Actually, outside of the utterly insane, I doubt any one is ever 100%. So I stick to my definition of athiesm in this regard.) It's a subject I'm strongly interested in, as you can probably tell. I've found my conclusions, which, so far as I can tell, are beyond rebuttal. I can appreciate that you sensed intellectual dishonesty in a claim that, so far as you have been presented with, was without proof. I'm rather inclined to believe that being presented with the counter points of both misunderstanding the claim and esoteric proofs which may have read illegibly could have been less than satisfying. To this end, I'd simply like to say that I can appreciate your position. Hopefully the evening will go well for you too.

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:26:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Finite Black Box Over Infinite Time: Take a black box. Dim its boundries as being greater than any level that the universe could expand to. Dim contents as being either grandular or approximated finely as grandular. Observe infinite time. Note all possibilities, including death conditions, will eventually be fulfilled. Conclude that all that are able to die do. Conclude all that are unable of dying are not, by definition, alive. A most interesting construct. However, it has several internal contradictions, not the least of which is the contradiction of a finite box over infinite time (which renders the box itself infinite). Additionally, the application of the construct is limited to the universe, which elminates its utility in considering an entity which, by definition, must have an existence beyond the universe. I'm glad it was well received in such a regard, then. For the contradiction, I'd like to point out that "finite" was with regards to its spacial aspect, not all aspects. For the application, I would like to point out that "universe", by definition, includes the world we live in and anything that could have, may currently, or could possibly in the future, effect it- even if a God should be made of a material completely unknown to us, using laws of Physics we can't even begin to understand, etc., he is still part of our universe and therefore falls into the theory. (Both theories entirely ignore Physical laws as we can't assume them, a fact which I'll agree with without reservation.)

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 8:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Differentiating over the Quantum Reality Theory: Dim QRT. Consider possiblities in which a God exists versus do not as a ratio. Apply Laplace as appropriate in finding the limit. Unless you assert a ratio of zero, your model proves the existence of a deity by definition.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875