Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Indoctrination


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:17:09 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Religion started with Christianity? Really? Boy, the Jews, Egyptians, Budhists, et al. are gonna be kind of surprised to hear that!
Michael



And once again Michael, you mis-quote me in order to try and bolster your very narrow and blinkered view of religion.

I am speaking of the christian god and I made that quite clear.
It/he did not exists until the religion-base was invented by someone - a man, if I believe what I am told!

I categorically did not say that religion started with christianity.




< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 11/13/2012 10:18:20 AM >

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:18:47 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

What do you mean by "enlightenment"?

Are you equating it with religious belief?

In the context of Michael's comment . . . . and since the OP was about religious indoctrination . . .

quote:

Even more to my beliefs, though, is the gut-wrenching feeling that science will, one day, prove the existence of God. Yes, I believe that. I don't believe that the two are diametrically opposed. I believe in the old adage that "The Lord works in mysterious ways, His wonderous works to perform" and I believe that He authored science so that one day, the doubting Thomases of the world would have iron-clad proof that there is some "Great Spirit" (or whatever the new politically correct bullshit term will be) that has been watching over us from the very beginning.


I did take his use of 'enlightenment' in its religious sense not in its 18th Century sense. But now Michael claims he was using the secular meaning of the word despite how well layered his remarks are with the 'Lord's works.'

ETA: in either sense, why do we need to prove or disprove the existence of god? God is irrelevent.



< Message edited by vincentML -- 11/13/2012 10:29:59 AM >

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:19:45 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Religion started with Christianity? Really? Boy, the Jews, Egyptians, Budhists, et al. are gonna be kind of surprised to hear that!

Prejudices are what fools use for reason. ~Voltaire

K.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:22:35 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
And incidentally, most of the other religions had something real as it's base.

The Egyptians had the stars and formed their statues from that.
The same is true for the Aztecs, the Myans and many others of similar ilk.
It was things they saw for real or observed or could see and touch.

Other religions were based on real people.

Only the christian religion (and maybe an odd few others) has it's base in something totally unreal.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:23:06 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Religion started with Christianity? Really? Boy, the Jews, Egyptians, Budhists, et al. are gonna be kind of surprised to hear that!
Michael



And once again Michael, you mis-quote me in order to try and bolster your very narrow and blinkered view of religion.

I am speaking of the christian god and I made that quite clear.
It/he did not exists until the religion-base was invented by someone - a man, if I believe what I am told!





Where did I mis-quote you? I used your words, sock.

But, let's examine that. The "Christian God" that you claim started 2,000 + years ago, according to his followers sprang from the Hebrew God. His followers claim that he claimed to be the son of Yaweh (well, they imply it, anyway).

Personally, I believe that enough evidence exists that this Jesus person did exist and that he was a pretty spiritual sort, having studied under the Budha (the missing years from ages 12 to 30). So, I am making the case that his teachings are an extension of Budhism.

Either way, your own words were what I used sock-puppet. I did not mis-quote you. You put forth the idea that religion started with Christianity which with the possible exception of Paganism (which some say is an off-shoot of Christianity) and Jedi-ism (Is that the correct term?) is the newest form of religion.

Sorry, religion and religious belief has been with us a lot longer than Christianity, sock.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Man have been searching for this ethereal 'god' since he/it was invented by someone just over two millenia ago.

And before the religious nuts tell me it wasn't invented, it most certainly was!
He/it didn't exist until the birth of christianity and even now does not exist except in the minds and scriptures of the followers.


Neither men nor the science of men will prove the physical existance of something that was no more than a figment of someone's imagination in order to provide a focal point for like-minded followers.

Incidentally, if it is an omnipotent, ethereal being, how come it's refered to as 'he'?
Isn't that rather sexist?
If it is known for sure it's a 'he', then those 'in the know' can obviously prove beyond any shadow of doubt that 'he' is real and exists - but none of them can!
Considering there is no evidence that he/it even exists, let alone what sex it is, I find that a rather amusing concept.




< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 11/13/2012 10:26:52 AM >


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:26:57 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

If there is no real way to prove it are you not back to Faith then?

Excuse me? What's this "back" to faith business? When did we ever leave it behind? Science itself is a faith-based enterprise. There is no way to prove the existence of an external reality.

K.


If I recall, we have had this discussion before. I will say to you again: go stand in front of an oncoming train and then tell me there is no way to prove the existence of an external reality.

Hear the whistle blowing, feel the ground shaking, experience the SPLAT of steel against your flesh and bones. Tell me you did not prove the reality of the train.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:28:36 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

If I recall, we have had this discussion before... go stand in front of an oncoming train and then tell me there is no way to prove the existence of an external reality.

I wouldn't call listening to you preach your faith a "discussion."

K.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:30:37 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
thx!

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:31:06 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

If I recall, we have had this discussion before... go stand in front of an oncoming train and then tell me there is no way to prove the existence of an external reality.

I wouldn't call listening to you preach your faith a "discussion."

K.



Cop out!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:34:07 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
thx tazzy!

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:35:06 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Religion started with Christianity? Really? Boy, the Jews, Egyptians, Budhists, et al. are gonna be kind of surprised to hear that!
Michael



And once again Michael, you mis-quote me in order to try and bolster your very narrow and blinkered view of religion.

I am speaking of the christian god and I made that quite clear.
It/he did not exists until the religion-base was invented by someone - a man, if I believe what I am told!





Where did I mis-quote you? I used your words, sock.

But, let's examine that. The "Christian God" that you claim started 2,000 + years ago, according to his followers sprang from the Hebrew God. His followers claim that he claimed to be the son of Yaweh (well, they imply it, anyway).

Personally, I believe that enough evidence exists that this Jesus person did exist and that he was a pretty spiritual sort, having studied under the Budha (the missing years from ages 12 to 30). So, I am making the case that his teachings are an extension of Budhism.

Either way, your own words were what I used sock-puppet. I did not mis-quote you. You put forth the idea that religion started with Christianity which with the possible exception of Paganism (which some say is an off-shoot of Christianity) and Jedi-ism (Is that the correct term?) is the newest form of religion.

Sorry, religion and religious belief has been with us a lot longer than Christianity, sock.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



So where in my post did I say that religion started 2,000 years ago with the christians??
I most certainly did not and never even inferred it.
I certainly did not 'put forth' as you put it that religion started with christianity.
I merely stated that christianity didn't exist until just over 2 millenia ago.
That, to me, is mis-quoting me completely.

I do not deny that Jesus existed, just that he was no god nor son of god.
Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that was a real person and I have acknowledged that fact elsewhere.
He was a well-travelled man by all accounts and had some teachings by monks and scholars in his lifetime which would make him a well-educated person compared to many of those around him.

Oh, and incidentally, I didn't mention Jesus at all in my other posts so i have no idea why you brough him into it.
I was talking about god, not Jesus - two entirely different entities. :)



(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:39:56 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
So where in my post did I say that religion started 2,000 years ago with the christians??


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Man have been searching for this ethereal 'god' since he/it was invented by someone just over two millenia ago.

And before the religious nuts tell me it wasn't invented, it most certainly was!
He/it didn't exist until the birth of christianity and even now does not exist except in the minds and scriptures of the followers.


Neither men nor the science of men will prove the physical existance of something that was no more than a figment of someone's imagination in order to provide a focal point for like-minded followers.

Incidentally, if it is an omnipotent, ethereal being, how come it's refered to as 'he'?
Isn't that rather sexist?
If it is known for sure it's a 'he', then those 'in the know' can obviously prove beyond any shadow of doubt that 'he' is real and exists - but none of them can!
Considering there is no evidence that he/it even exists, let alone what sex it is, I find that a rather amusing concept.



In case you missed the highlighted portion, the first time.

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:40:44 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
FTR
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Man have been searching for this ethereal 'god' since he/it was invented by someone just over two millenia ago.

And before the religious nuts tell me it wasn't invented, it most certainly was!
He/it didn't exist until the birth of christianity and even now does not exist except in the minds and scriptures of the followers.

Neither men nor the science of men will prove the physical existance of something that was no more than a figment of someone's imagination in order to provide a focal point for like-minded followers.

Incidentally, if it is an omnipotent, ethereal being, how come it's refered to as 'he'?
Isn't that rather sexist?
If it is known for sure it's a 'he', then those 'in the know' can obviously prove beyond any shadow of doubt that 'he' is real and exists - but none of them can!
Considering there is no evidence that he/it even exists, let alone what sex it is, I find that a rather amusing concept.




_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:41:56 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


I most certainly did not and never even inferred it.




I'm sure you meant "Implied"

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:54:45 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
No, I did not mean 'imply' at all.

And I DON'T see anywhere in my post that stated that religion started with christianity 2,00 years ago.
I merely stated that christianity started just over 2,000 years ago - I specifically did not mention or imply any other religions.

You are obviously not reading the same post as me.

Or twisting it to make others think I meant 'implied' - which I deliberately didn't. :)

Edit for clarity: By refering to 'the' ethereal god, that is certainly an implication to christian religion as that is pretty much the only common place where such a being is referred to with any regularity.


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 11/13/2012 11:00:03 AM >

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 10:57:11 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Cop out!

It would be helpful if you would learn something about a topic before thumping your copy of "The World According to Vincent" and ridiculing anyone who declines to accept your narcissistic belief in your own inerrancy.
    In Section 6.5, we saw that all quantum systems are nonlocal, not just those of the Aspect and Gröblacher experiments described in Section 4.3. The Copenhagen interpretation includes observations but contains no physical mechanism for nonlocal wavefunction collapse. Hidden variables theory is intrinsically nonlocal because of the nonlocal quantum force, but includes no observations. Many-worlds theory includes observations but its explanation for nonlocality is that the wavefunction, which is a purely mathematical, not a physical object, is nonlocal. Thus, physics has no physical explanation for the nonlocality of observation. (This is reminiscent of Gödel’s theorem, which we discussed in Section 5.6.) We must now begin to question our assumptions about the reality of space and time. We shall say more about this in Section 7.1 and Chapter 12.

    As we have seen in Sections 6.4 and 6.5, if it is consciousness that collapses the wavefunction (or that materializes a branch as in Section 6.7), then consciousness must be nonphysical. If it is nonlocal universal consciousness, we are faced with some other far-reaching conclusions. What two individual observers see is determined by universal consciousness, not by any kind of individual consciousness that might exist. This applies to all of our sensory perceptions without exception. Since everything we perceive is determined by universal consciousness, it makes no sense to say that there is a material world independent of consciousness. Thus the dualism of mind and matter is excluded....

    In physics, objective reality is defined as that which exists whether or not it is being observed. A fundamental problem with this definition is that it can never be verified by observation because all of our observations, without exception, are purely subjective and can never go beyond the mind (see Section 1.1). ...

    Fundamental to the assumption of an objective reality is the assumption that spacetime exists. In quantum theory, spacetime is the absolute, unchanging context in which everything happens. In general relativity (gravity theory, see Section 2.6), space, time, matter, and energy all depend on each other and are the content of the theory. The two theories are incompatible because absolute context is not relative content. Hence, a unified theory of quantum gravity has not been found and probably will not be found unless context and content can somehow be reconciled. One way to resolve this incompatibility is to see that spacetime is purely subjective rather than objective (see Section 12.1). If spacetime is a concept in the mind rather than the context of the mind, then objective reality is also a concept because separation between objects must occur in spacetime....

    As we discussed in Section 1.1, because all of our experience is subjective, it is clear that the existence of an external reality can never be verified by observation and thus it can only be a metaphysical assumption. Furthermore, if objective reality cannot be observed, it cannot affect any observation because an effect on an observation is an observation. Thus, the concept of an external reality is both unsupportable and unwarranted.
~Stanley Sobottka, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Virginia

K.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 11:06:08 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
Didn't Stephen Hawkins disprove most of this??

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 11:09:29 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
Furthermore, if objective reality cannot be observed, it cannot affect any observation because an effect on an observation is an observation. Thus, the concept of an external reality is both unsupportable and unwarranted.

If that cute chick had just stopped observing me I might'a observed that car and gotten out of the way

/s


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 11:13:51 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
[Ed for ungraciousness]



< Message edited by crazyml -- 11/13/2012 11:37:34 AM >


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Indoctrination - 11/13/2012 11:22:15 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Didn't Stephen Hawkins disprove most of this??

And you think so why?
    Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them. In philosophy, that belief is called realism... Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only where it agrees with observation.
~Stephen Hawking, Scientific American, October 2010, page 70
    Any sound scientific theory… should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definitive predictions that can be tested.

    If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.
~Stephen Hawking, The Universe In a Nutshell, page 31

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/13/2012 11:24:25 AM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.148