hyebruin Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) I believe those who declare themselves as atheists do it mostly out of (misplaced) pride. ah ha!! exactly what i think! misplaced arrogant audacity!!! thank you Edited April 10, 2004 by hyebruin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 You are confusing things here Stormtrooper. Since when did one need to have credentials to disagree with a theory? Since when was it not permissible to disagree with something by not being in biology? This is not a matter of credentials. You act like Domino, as if in order for something to be valid it must come out of the mouth of someone with "credentials". There is no prerequisite to using your mind and disagreeing. As for evolution, I never said it shouldn't be a theory, but I have been stating, much to the dismay of you and Domino and Co. that evolution is grounded in belief; a religion of its own class. Of course this doesn't sit well with the evolutionist group, even though the last refuge of evolutionists is "it's the best possible explanation out there", which is akin to belief. The scientific method is the best possible method out there. You got beef with that? Bring an alternative, or bring an alternative to bringing an alternative, whatever your problem is. It's funny - nobody here (that I have noticed) has been trying to convince you of anything, including evolution (whereas you are stuck in variation and adaptation, entirely different from although the latter not altogether mutually exclusive with evolution, from my understanding), but the fallacy of your approach. If, within the generally accepted norms of the approach, you were to bring in facts that discredit evolution (and why would it be you anyway, we'd have had some familiarity with this earth-shattering revelation), then you'd have a chance of proper debate. Until then, you sound like someone claiming the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it and that people can't have gone to the moon, in exaggeration. And, yes, you do need credentials (background, research, findings, etc.) to disagree with a theory, and even then the process takes time within the scientific community. When you don't need credentials is when you are, as is every layman's right, skeptical or suspicious of a theory, which you are not. For you to think you can just disagree with everything you read a contrarian view about, you have to be pretty arrogant (and it does show, despite you and Axel's characterisation of me as such, what a laugh, I've been getting plenty on this forum lately). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Remember, Mousey, Axel doesn't take a liking to people that watch Weakest Link. that's jumping...no diving! to conclusions!! do you even know if he watches t.v.? i bet you watch more american t.v. than he does? or am i wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 I believe those who declare themselves as atheists do it mostly out of (misplaced) pride. I believe that people who out of the blue don't like people that watch Weakest Link are arrogant busybodies that like disrupting "Impressions of the day" threads. Actually, it is an observation, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 ah ha!! exactly what i think! misplaced arrogant audacity!!! thank you I don't know Anoushik's age, but I observe she is entirely right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 I thought it was not Ph.D.'s but Americans, or so the story goes where I come from. Maybe it's current American presidents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 that's jumping...no diving! to conclusions!! do you even know if he watches t.v.? i bet you watch more american t.v. than he does? or am i wrong? http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showt...indpost&p=79637 http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showt...indpost&p=80084 Say again? Talk as much as you know and you'll save a lot of breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Maybe it's current American presidents? True enough, certainly it can't be all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 disrupting "Impressions of the day" threads. Oh ma douce, j'en suis sincèrement navré... Comment saurais-je m'acquitter de ce forfait? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 How about by jumping in the lake, Froog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Could everyone please stick to the subjects? We are in the terratory of discover channal, frogs,lakes, mouse and TV Angel J You can call God anything you want some people like higher force or spirit but it is diffenetly not a being. Actually Koran is closer to the true meaning then the bible.Koran correctly asserts that God is an abstruction. I suspect Buddha reached the same conclusion and refused to define it hence the Zen tradition which I practised years ego and thinking practising again seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Could everyone please stick to the subjects? Sorry Armat, just one last message How about by jumping in the lake, Froog? Oh dear, how shall I express my gratitude for such lenient a chastisement? How considerate you are to give up inflicting your presence on me so that I will no longer have to suffer the uninterrupted flood of stupidities coming out of your (charming) mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Sorry Armat, just one last message Oh dear, how shall I express my gratitude for such lenient a chastisement? How considerate you are to give up inflicting your presence on me so that I will no longer have to suffer the uninterrupted flood of stupidities coming out of your (charming) mouth. "Blah blah blah blah." It's amazing how some men don't know when to shut up, whereas it is us women with the reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 So in other words, I think one could say that God is in every one of us. (Actually Sasun says this, if I'm not mistaken.) Yes, Jesus has indicated that the Kingdom of Heaven is inside ourselves. That means God is inside of ourselves. Many others before and after Jesus also have said that God is inside ourselves. I cannot deny this existence of a higher being, but why do you call it God? Why does it deserve to be called God? I think the only time a being deserves to be called God is when that being is all-good and all-powerful. So you think God is not all-good and all-powerful? How did you come to this conclusion without attempting to know God? I think that's what Gevo had in mind originally when he was saying that you cannot deny the existence of God without knowing what God really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Slight cleanup ... Angel/Anoushik if you have a problem with each other please use PMs. Thank you. Mreow - did I miss a catfight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Steve, Getting back to my analogy. The blind doesn't see the light. Can he infer from that that his brother cannot see? He may choose to deny the reality of light and declare it a fantasy. It may be that most people are blind and only a few can see (and of course, you may have some charlatans who pretend to see yet don't) I made a similar analogy before but nobody seemed to understand or care http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showt...indpost&p=93912 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Armat, the main difference between music and god is that we hear music and then decide whether it is good or not. With God, we are supposed to "sense" something, whatever that may be, and if it is good we are supposed to attribute it to God and if it is bad we are supposed to attribute it to "not God" (a much more arbitrary categorization). In other words, "Godness" is somehow predetermined as being all that is good and holy while music must be good in order to be good music! Did I make any sense? No it doesn't. Music is either good or is not good - and it exists in that state without the listener. and the listener hasn't much to do with it (in Western music that is the case, anyway - music in non western cultures is, in terms of theory, little more advanced than a monkey banging two sticks together). I.e. music has to follow certain predetermined natural (not human) laws: melody, harmony, proportion, etc. Just like all the creatures on this planet, and the very planets themselves. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Steve, Getting back to my analogy. The blind doesn't see the light. Can he infer from that that his brother cannot see? He may choose to deny the reality of light and declare it a fantasy. It may be that most people are blind and only a few can see (and of course, you may have some charlatans who pretend to see yet don't) I have no time to elaborate (and my english is not good enough) but think about it carefully. Also leave alone your own preconceptions about religious people. True, there are some soft-brained individuals which cannot see the spirit past the letter. These are as blind as the atheists. True religious sentiment is not belief in the letter. Anon, Well I guess you too belong with the "greatest minds" of the forum. I apologize for erroneously putting you aside. Your analogy is about a meaningless as the black cat in a coalcellar analogy. He can infer/deny/believe whatever he damned well wants - but that doesn't mean that what he infers/denies/believes is in anyway true. Same for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 All this about non-believers being handicapped, blind, whatever, is the easy way out. Admiration, awe, inspiration, hope, etc., are all needs of humans. A long time ago I read some piece of article where it was mentioned that a bunch of members of some primate species (possibly gorillas) had been observed to dance about at the encounter of a splendid waterfall. The author speculated that this could be a clue as to awe and that sort of thing being common to, at the very least, some primates and human beings. Hence, faith can be part of an instinct. I thought, why not? Since then I have accepted that it ought to be a common instinct, what some call "vision," as if it is a commodity for those that "have" it to cherish so that those that "don't have" it can feel left-out or some such BS. That said, all of us human beings grow out of a lot of our own instincts. This may be due to the society we live in, psychological issues, or our resolutions as we think and mature. It depends on entirely on the person. Some people will go mad trying to "find answers that elude them," some (like me) will lose no sleep over it. All in all, it proves nothing and makes no difference. At the end of the day, it is what you do that determines the good, not some codicile or conviction or what have you that you abide by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) No it doesn't. Music is either good or is not good - and it exists in that state without the listener. and the listener hasn't much to do with it (in Western music that is the case, anyway - music in non western cultures is, in terms of theory, little more advanced than a monkey banging two sticks together). I.e. music has to follow certain predetermined natural (not human) laws: melody, harmony, proportion, etc. Just like all the creatures on this planet, and the very planets themselves. Steve Nope, here again, there is no evidences that music can exist without a listener. You assume it exist without a listener, but no clear evidences can be brought. I challenge anyone to bring me an evidences that music can exist without a listener. The observer by his observation makes music exist. The believer in a god, by his obervations makes god exist, for the non-believer it is the same thing... both person could observe the same exact thing but both will interprate it differently. Your belief influence what you do observe and you will interprate it based on that. For a non-believer in a god all this spiritual stuff is nonesense but not for the believer. Edited April 10, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 Stormig, for the record, when I made comparison with blind people I didn't say non-believers are blind, I said both believers and non-believers are blind. And no, faith is not an instinct. Leave instinct for the animal kingdom, we are human beings not animals. As for those who had vision, they all spent their lives teaching common human beings how to attain vision, they did not to look down to them and made them feel left out as you seem to imply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 And no, faith is not an instinct. Leave instinct for the animal kingdom, we are human beings not animals. Sasun, yes, we are animals, like it or not, for we are not fungi nor plants. It is time the human species got off its high horse and acknowledged its strengths and weaknesses instead of cowering in fear of the intangible and looking down on the rest of the animal kingdom! We have soooo much in common that it is astounding. Hell, I know dogs that are smarter than some erect-walking, hairless primates I've met in my life. As for the blindness, I didn't have what you said in mind per se. I have just happened to have been reminded of the general attitude and choice of words when similar is used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) We differ from animals only by our intelligence and nothing more.............. from biological stand point of view, at list, we belong to an animal kingdom, and what is so odd about this Sasun? Edited April 10, 2004 by Edward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 I made a similar analogy before but nobody seemed to understand or care http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showt...indpost&p=93912 Sorry Sasun I haven't read the whole thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted April 10, 2004 Report Share Posted April 10, 2004 There are things that unite us with animals, and things that separate. Amimals don't have nearly the same level of consciousness as we do. Animals are not capable of thinking and making conscious choices, and they can never transform themselves into higher beings. Only we humans can do these things. If we don't try to use our potential then we are bound to be half-animals. It is up to the individual how to look upon himself/herself depending on their consciousness and ideals. I would never agree to be equally branded with animals and give in to animal instincts. It is a weakness not befitting humans. We have mind and spirit, we must not allow the inconscient animal nature dominate our consciousness. Stormig, our horses are certainly high and can be much higher if we really want. Yes, we are born with strengths and weaknesses, but we can conqour our weaknesses unlike animals. This should give us a reason to be on high horses. Edward, bilological similarities are not enough to be considered a part of animal kingdom. Man has a choice - to be ruled by his animal nature, or to rule over his animal nature. In other words, to be hostage of the physical body, or to try to liberate itself from such bondage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.