RE: Einstein and G*d

RE: Einstein and G*d (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:15:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen and I should know, I've followed a few You have [:-] ?!

LadyEllen -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:23:02 AM)
Of course! Then, I got SATNAV, and since then everythings been fine E

Rule -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 8:29:04 AM)
Yeah SATNAV!

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 9:45:55 AM)
Sleepy, if you are not in truth seeks' latest incarnation, you can scarcely conceive - and mere words cannot convey, the magnitude of the apology that I owe you. [sm=rofl.gif]

Politesub53 -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 3:44:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Sleepy, if you are not in truth seeks' latest incarnation, you can scarcely conceive - and mere words cannot convey, the magnitude of the apology that I owe you. [sm=rofl.gif] Once again, Reality really does Lick huh [8D]

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 4:23:12 PM)
"Once again"? You need to remind me of the first time. I think the message in this post has been lost on you. [8\|]

Politesub53 -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 4:30:51 PM)
I mean the reality of you making a wrong assumption. No more, no less, and quite frankly its way too late in the day for me to find your previous error (s) . [;)]

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 4:39:20 PM)
I'm baffled that you thought it actually worth commenting that I make mistakes! Despite appearances, I am human. But since you can't recall anything about this mistake, I'll rest easy in the knowledge it wasn't that serious. Do let me know about any posters here who have never made wrong assumptions. Nice to know you're out there, officer.

Politesub53 -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 4:45:55 PM)
I would have thought the [8D] showed i was being humorous. It must be past bedtime in the UK !

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 4:52:52 PM)
Sorry, dude! [:D] Did you make a joke the first time, too? ... and er, maybe I'm crazy but didn't jokes used to be funny?

kittinSol -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Do let me know about any posters here who have never made wrong assumptions. [:)]

Politesub53 -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:02:24 PM)
I cant please everyone, but hopefully someone laughed. I guess we all can get our wires crossed on here too.

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 5:10:54 PM)
Did you say something about electric play??? (P.S. to the person who is watching me - no, I really don't like it. It was a joke. Heh.)

SleepyDom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:08:38 PM)
quote: I'm not religious but I don't buy it. Anything that is taken to the extreme can be "justification" for negative actions with regretful consequences. bat, things that seem extreme today certainly weren't back then. The crusades weren't some "extreme fundamentalist" group's thing. It was mainstream. Slavery was mainstream too as practiced by many nations. In fact, abolitionists were seen as the extremists if anything. And you're simply overgeneralizing a whole batch of things that don't fit under the "just because it can be taken to extreme doesn't mean it's harmful." The Bible is full of nonsense about various aspects of sexuality being wrong. Well, are Christians taking things to extremes when they take those scriptures literally? How so? They're just taking what it says at face value. Christianity, for example, is harmful because it IS extreme not because some can take it to the extreme. If you study some religions you'll see how ridiculously extreme they are. Granted, there are nonextreme religions. In fact, religions with no belief in God even. Like Buddhism. Some are so wishywashy that it's difficult to even think of them as religion, not that it's a bad thing since they don't start anything like the crusades. And a lot of the loveydovey crap--well they're nonsense but pretty harmless so who cares? But look at some mainstream, harmful religions like Islam and you'll see the kind of harmful crap they believe about women, for example. If you know what Islam says about women and how they should be treated, you'll be grateful that most of us in the US is not infected with this crap (but some are).

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 7:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom Christianity, for example, is harmful because it IS extreme not because some can take it to the extreme. The way some folks practice it, it is extreme. Other folks don't practice such an extreme version of it. Perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by extreme - it could be that I am simply misunderstanding you. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom If you study some religions you'll see how ridiculously extreme they are. I have studied religions. Some of them are ridiculous, all of them can be taken to an extreme, just as can eating too much, drinking too much, not taking responsibility (too much of the time), etc. etc. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom Granted, there are nonextreme religions. In fact, religions with no belief in God even. Like Buddhism. Some are so wishywashy that it's difficult to even think of them as religion, not that it's a bad thing since they don't start anything like the crusades. So then ... if I am understanding you correctly, it's this belief in god thing that makes religions extreme. Huh. Interesting. Then there are non-religious things that do start bad things, like pride and sloth and greed and power. And while we're at it, capitalism, communism, marxism, socialism ... on and on. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom And a lot of the loveydovey crap--well they're nonsense but pretty harmless so who cares? Yes ... good point. What about love, SD? I bet love can start wars of all sorts. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom But look at some mainstream, harmful religions like Islam and you'll see the kind of harmful crap they believe about women, for example. If you know what Islam says about women and how they should be treated, you'll be grateful that most of us in the US is not infected with this crap (but some are). I am familiar with Islam. I have several girlfriends who are (american) muslims and I gotta tell ya ... it doesn't look like they're tortured to me. But again, if you can be specific and tell me what you have found that it says about women, I would be glad to ask them about it, and speak with the men in their families so that I can have a better answer. I promise they won't jihad me. I maintain that it's the extremists, and I also maintain that you can get bad results from taking almost anything to an extreme.

SleepyDom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/13/2008 9:18:40 PM)
If religion x says that women are inferior, that they should not show their face in public, that they should never be able to vote or own property, and followers of this religion adhers to what it says literally, meaning, they treat women exactly this way, are they being extreme? I mean, are they taking the religion to an extreme? If so, how would one NOT go to extreme when religion x says such things? That the book didn't really mean it? It was just kidding? That by 'women' they really meant bugs and that bugs should be treated this way? That such things should not be taken literally but symbolically in some other way? Yes, I suppose you could weasel your way out of any extreme thing some religion says, but this doesn't change how extreme the religion already IS. Why would you need to weasel your way out of anything if religion wasn't extreme in the first place? Yes, religions keep changing as people realize how barbaric and stupid they are and try to make them more palatable so they don't have to throw away the whole thing but still pretend they belong to the same religion. Christianity 1000 years ago isn't what it is today. You can say how people took Christianity to an extreme in those days and that we are so much better today, but you're just weasling out of what religion actually was back then and is today. Slavery was the norm at one point. Killing infidels (anyone who didn't believe in your religion) was the accepted norm at one point. Burning witches (or suspected witches) was the norm at one point. Violence against homosexuals was the norm at one point (even today in many places). Are you saying all those people were extremists even though they were the norm, the mainstream in their time? If so the word really loses its meaning, and it doesn't really mean anything to say if only we didn't go to the extreme, it wouldn't be harmful. Or, I should say, if that statement means something, then I don't know what. You'll have to give it a new meaning since you're no longer using the standard meaning of being a minority, a fringe group. "So then ... if I am understanding you correctly, it's this belief in god thing that makes religions extreme. Huh. Interesting." No, I don't even have any idea where you got that. You have a very interesting sense of interpretation. Just stick to what I actually say please. And yes, I agree most things can be taken to an extreme and that's usually not good (there are exceptions), but that's completely beside the point. My point is that religions are already extreme in many cases (both historically and today) and have caused great harm just as they are, with no need for anyone to take it to an extreme. "Then there are non-religious things that do start bad things, like pride and sloth and greed and power. And while we're at it, capitalism, communism, marxism, socialism ... on and on." And the relevance of this point? Because other things are bad too we should excuse religion? Or just the same irrelevant point that anything can be taken to an extreme and cause harm? "Yes ... good point. What about love, SD? I bet love can start wars of all sorts." Really? How so? I suppose jealousy could, a la Helen of Troy. But how could LOVE start all kinds of wars? Can you give an example? I have a hard time even imagining one.

RealityLicks -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/14/2008 2:50:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If Einstein really believed this he is not as intelligent as we give him credit for. Religion doesn't add any impetus to acts of social justice, if they did, you would expect no impetus for social justice from people who don't believe in god. In fact, just browse these threads and you will find that many of those people that believe in god also believe in state execution, war, selfish individualism and many other things that are an antithesis to their espoused religion. Dawkins on the other hand, worries about the irrationality of religion and its historic fight against knowledge, which is still going on today. I totally disagree. As a kid I was constantly prevailed upon to run up the stairs of skyscrapers, or over the bridges of the Thames and so on to raise sponsorship money for charity. I would never have played chess with spina bifida patients or cooked meals for the homeless if I hadn't gone to a faith school. I'm not saying that this stuff doesn't happen around secular schools but you've only to think of Cafod, peace pagodas, Christian Aid, the Sally Army, to realise that there is a quite some emphasis placed on charitable work with most religions and that they inculcate that ethos in many young people who go on to become non-believers in time. It's not a zero sum equation, where all religionists are wholly without value and all atheists filled with virtue. That's as bad as the Victorian moralists who considered all criminals as ungodly - as if religion was the sole determinant of character. It may be a shame that people don't just help each other out of simple humanitarianism but you have to look at whether religion is still useful in a society where that level of social development is deliberately held back. If religion acts as a counter-balance to naked greed and social atomisation, surely those are strong arguments to tolerate it, if not to espouse it oneself.

meatcleaver -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/14/2008 4:27:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If Einstein really believed this he is not as intelligent as we give him credit for. Religion doesn't add any impetus to acts of social justice, if they did, you would expect no impetus for social justice from people who don't believe in god. In fact, just browse these threads and you will find that many of those people that believe in god also believe in state execution, war, selfish individualism and many other things that are an antithesis to their espoused religion. Dawkins on the other hand, worries about the irrationality of religion and its historic fight against knowledge, which is still going on today. I totally disagree. As a kid I was constantly prevailed upon to run up the stairs of skyscrapers, or over the bridges of the Thames and so on to raise sponsorship money for charity. I would never have played chess with spina bifida patients or cooked meals for the homeless if I hadn't gone to a faith school. I'm not saying that this stuff doesn't happen around secular schools but you've only to think of Cafod, peace pagodas, Christian Aid, the Sally Army, to realise that there is a quite some emphasis placed on charitable work with most religions and that they inculcate that ethos in many young people who go on to become non-believers in time. It's not a zero sum equation, where all religionists are wholly without value and all atheists filled with virtue. That's as bad as the Victorian moralists who considered all criminals as ungodly - as if religion was the sole determinant of character. It may be a shame that people don't just help each other out of simple humanitarianism but you have to look at whether religion is still useful in a society where that level of social development is deliberately held back. If religion acts as a counter-balance to naked greed and social atomisation, surely those are strong arguments to tolerate it, if not to espouse it oneself. I think your thinking is muddled. Your implication that religion gives impetus to acts of social justice and that other none religious belief systems don't, doesn't stand up to a modicum of examination. It is religion that has for centuries stifled social justice and humanitarians and atheists that fought for social justice. It is only since religion has been in decline that religion has concerned itself with social justice, before it was more interested in saving souls and was largely socially conservative and absolutely corrupt.

batshalom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/14/2008 5:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom If religion x says that women are inferior, that they should not show their face in public, that they should never be able to vote or own property, and followers of this religion adhers to what it says literally, meaning, they treat women exactly this way, are they being extreme? I mean, are they taking the religion to an extreme? If so, how would one NOT go to extreme when religion x says such things? That the book didn't really mean it? It was just kidding? That by 'women' they really meant bugs and that bugs should be treated this way? That such things should not be taken literally but symbolically in some other way? Biblical texts were written in a different time. They are historical documents written, in part, for political propaganda. Some people take these texts literally, some don't. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom Yes, I suppose you could weasel your way out of any extreme thing some religion says, but this doesn't change how extreme the religion already IS. Why would you need to weasel your way out of anything if religion wasn't extreme in the first place? First, if you are addressing me with the term "weaseling" I find it rather offensive and beneath the context of a debate. So sorry if I am touching a nerve. I don't need to weasel my way into or out of anything in particular. The thing is, religion has changed over the years as the times have changed - why shouldn't it? The only constant in life is change. One could say humanity is extreme - and it is - for the things we perpetrate against each other. Things are done in the name of religion that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with greed and power. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom Yes, religions keep changing as people realize how barbaric and stupid they are and try to make them more palatable so they don't have to throw away the whole thing but still pretend they belong to the same religion. Pretend to belong to the same religion? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Since I am not a woman like my grandmother or my mother, does mean I am pretending to belong to the same gender? quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom Christianity 1000 years ago isn't what it is today. You can say how people took Christianity to an extreme in those days and that we are so much better today, but you're just weasling out of what religion actually was back then and is today. You are correct. Christianity isn't today what it was even 100 years ago. If the church cannot change with the times, then the church would fall asunder. People change and thus their ways of worshiping and believing change too. I'm not sure what your argument is. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom Slavery was the norm at one point. Killing infidels (anyone who didn't believe in your religion) was the accepted norm at one point. Burning witches (or suspected witches) was the norm at one point. Violence against homosexuals was the norm at one point (even today in many places). Are you saying all those people were extremists even though they were the norm, the mainstream in their time? Are you saying that norms can't be extreme? And you are making my point - things change because there is a need to do so. If everyone agreed with the way things were done, if everyone thought the norm was good, then the extreme norm would remain. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom If so the word really loses its meaning, and it doesn't really mean anything to say if only we didn't go to the extreme, it wouldn't be harmful. Or, I should say, if that statement means something, then I don't know what. You'll have to give it a new meaning since you're no longer using the standard meaning of being a minority, a fringe group. No, actually I don't. Norm is not the opposite of extreme. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom "So then ... if I am understanding you correctly, it's this belief in god thing that makes religions extreme. Huh. Interesting." No, I don't even have any idea where you got that. You have a very interesting sense of interpretation. Just stick to what I actually say please. Perhaps I am not clear on what you are actually saying. I am happy to try to understand you if you can make it more clear. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom "Then there are non-religious things that do start bad things, like pride and sloth and greed and power. And while we're at it, capitalism, communism, marxism, socialism ... on and on." And the relevance of this point? Because other things are bad too we should excuse religion? Or just the same irrelevant point that anything can be taken to an extreme and cause harm? It is wholly relevant, to my way of thinking. If you want to point to religion causing problems, a belief system of a people, then we should also point to other belief systems in order to construct a normalized point of reference instead of bashing one particular institution. quote: ORIGINAL: SleepyDom "Yes ... good point. What about love, SD? I bet love can start wars of all sorts." Really? How so? I suppose jealousy could, a la Helen of Troy. But how could LOVE start all kinds of wars? Can you give an example? I have a hard time even imagining one. ~smiling~ I didn't say it had to be the love of a woman, did I? I am happy you took that bait, SD, because it illustrated how things can be taken out of context. You say religion is extreme and that it can't be called extreme if it's a norm, and that change doesn't change the extremity. I say there are all sorts of ways that different people can look at the same concept and have a completely different idea of what it means. Love, for example. So we change our understandings of the world and of each other, and thus we are changed. People make religions - they don't hold up by themselves - and when the people change, the concepts of the religions change, as does the accepted behavior and goals of the group.

SleepyDom -> RE: Einstein and Gd* (5/14/2008 9:15:47 PM)
Took the bait? Now I see that you're a twit. If this is just a game to you, you're wasting my time. Though not your time as you obviously enjoy these silly games. Goodbye twit. Off to hide/ignore button you go.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875