Questioning Religion

[Danoff]

How can there be an answer if theres no question?

Because truth exists independent of the search for truth.

Yea, I bet you will stick to the paycheck too. You know, somewhere in here I think there is some reality.

I think that too, but neither of us can prove it and that's my point.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I don't think I twisted it at all. He claimed that the only way to know God is to experience God - to have an emotional reaction to God..

You twisted it, but I can understand why. I'm not talking about emotion. Then again thats not to say it can't be part of it. What I'm talking about is gaining a spiritual demension to go with your others. The demension that from the beginning was to be your dominant demension, but was lost when Adam and Eve disobeyed GOD.

I was explaining how one can experience something and have an emotional reaction to it without that thing being real.

Your exactly right.

 

[Danoff]

You twisted it, but I can understand why. I'm not talking about emotion. Then again thats not to say it can't be part of it. What I'm talking about is gaining a spiritual demension to go with your others. The demension that from the beginning was to be your dominant demension, but was lost when Adam and Eve disobeyed GOD.

I'm afraid I'm going to need something more concrete than a "spiritual dimension". What is spirituality? What does it mean to say that someone is spiritual? How do you perceive what you think is God's love? Compare it to something... a mother's love?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm afraid I'm going to need something more concrete than a "spiritual dimension".

OK. I'll do my best.

What is spirituality?

Spirituality can refer to the path of awareness, or it can refer to the state of being dedicated to a religion or God.

What does it mean to say that someone is spiritual?

Perhaps they have an increased awareness, or are perhaps more dedicated to a religion or God than others.

How do you perceive what you think is God's love? Compare it to something... a mother's love?

That's a matter of opinion. There is no definitive way to "perceive" God's love. Everyone will say something different. Hence, it cannot be compared to anything plausible.

However, that does not mean that God does not exist.

 

[Ev0]

Well, after reading some of the replies in this thread, I'm still highly skeptical over the 'actual' existence of god, but instead I now think that people who believe in god may only believe in their own 'personal god', which is formed from one's own faith, and from numerous social factors present in each individual's life. People may believe that god truly exists, and they are right, except instead of god being an actual being, force, spirit... god only exists in the conscious of individuals. This might explain why people 'experience' god's love, or even claim to have spoke directly to god. They were just simply interacting with, for lack of a better term, an invisible friend.

 

[Danoff]

Spirituality can refer to the path of awareness, or it can refer to the state of being dedicated to a religion or God.

The pursuit of awareness or, perhaps, truth is the same for religion and science... but science is not considered spiritual so I have to pick at the word "awareness" here.

That's a matter of opinion. There is no definitive way to "perceive" God's love.

So it's different for eveyone... Then how do you know that what you "perceive" is actually what everyone else is talking about?

Everyone will say something different. Hence, it cannot be compared to anything plausible.

I think you meant to say "it cannot be compared to anything else." This quote assumes that perception of God is not plausible.

So the perception of God is a unique experience both in the realm of human experiences and between people... that's awfully convenient.

It sounds like you're saying, whatever you think is God is God.

 

[Danoff]

Supposing that you have in fact experienced whatever the spiritual experience of God is (which I have obviously not experienced)... supposing that those of you who are spiritual have some sort of personal emotional or mental proof that you cant share with the rest of us that you have, in fact, expereinced something unique that thoes of us who are not spiritual have not experienced.


Supposing this - which I am not convinced of...

How do you know that your experience is the God that you read about in the bible? Perhaps your perception is of someone else's God... perhaps it is of a supreme being that humanity knows nothing about...

What I am saying is, even if you have had some sort of perception of God... you can't use that to validate the bible above any other religious theories. Other religions have their profts and their theories on the origin of the universe, how can you say they are wrong?

Even if we knew today that there were a supreme being and all of us could feel the love of that being, we would not know which book (if any) we should follow.


[edit] in fact, a spiritual experience or perception of a supreme being still does not refute the evidence that points to evolution. Those of you who claim to have had this spiritual experience should be wondering which religion also takes into account the evidence of evolution - because the ones that don't are clearly incorrect.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Yep. The bottlenose dolphin is genus Tursiops and the killer whale is genus Pseudorca, both belonging to the Delphinidae family and the Cetacea order.

Just as the wolf is genus Canis, the fox is genus Vulpes, both belonging to the Canidae family and the Carnivora order. Don't see many fox/wolf crosses though.

SFW?

This post is chock-full of arrogance. You're just trying to shove your knowledge of Latin and the Animal Kingdom into everyone's face. Are we all supposed to oooh and ahhh at your expertise? This is definitely not going to get you any sort of positive results, particularly in this thread. It's akin to a religious believer quoting Bible passages which have little or no relevance for no apparent reason.

Unless I have your intentions all wrong, in which case I'd like to know exactly what the point of your post was? (Though with your intellect I'm sure you'll find a way to dig yourself out of this with yet another explanation).

Sorry for the attack but this thread is less a discussion than it is 6 or 7 members running around a Mobius strip, and your post is glaringly rude in a sea of rudeness. I expect much more from you!

 

[Famine]

You clearly missed an earlier post here, AP.

A wolphin is a rare hybrid, formed from a cross between a bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (mother), and a false killer whale Pseudorca crassidens (father). Currently only one exists in captivity, in the Sea Life Park in Hawaii. It shares characteristics of both dolphins and orcas.

Although the word 'wolphin' is a portmanteau of whale and dolphin, since false killer whales are members of the family Delphinidae, that is, dolphins and not true whales, the wolphin is a kind of dolphin.

MrktMkr1986 was endeavouring to point out, through Wikipedia, that a "wolphin" isn't really a cross-breed, since both the killer whale and bottlenose dolphin are part of the same "family" (Delphinidae). I was merely pointing out that it quite patently is, since foxes and wolves are part of the same "family" (Canidae), and yet they are incapable of breeding with one another. MrktMkr1986 used the terms first in reference to the Cetaceans. I used parallel examples in the Carnivorae. Are you going to chide him for being rude now?

The Linnaean term "family" is a massive coverall. It goes Kingdom (Animal/Plant), Phylum, (subphylum), Class, Order, Family, (subfamily), Genus, Species, (subspecies). A Family can comprise several hundred genuses (geni? Whatever). Take the Ursidae family - bears. That contains the Genus Ursus - bears - and the Genus Ailuropodia - Pandas. How many times have you heard children being told off for calling Pandas "Panda bears", on the grounds that they are not bears? But they ARE part of the Bear family, despite not being part of the Bear Genus.

For reference, the classical definition of a "species" is any group of animals incapable of breeding with another similar group of animals to produce viable offspring. As you can see, there are a few exceptions to that rule.


The post was on topic, salient and cohesive.

 

[Anderton Prime]

I didn't think MrktMkr was trying to disprove your post (if he was, he should know better) but if you take it in that light I guess your retort was somewhat justified.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

SFW?

This post is chock-full of arrogance. You're just trying to shove your knowledge of Latin and the Animal Kingdom into everyone's face. Are we all supposed to oooh and ahhh at your expertise? This is definitely not going to get you any sort of positive results, particularly in this thread. It's akin to a religious believer quoting Bible passages which have little or no relevance for no apparent reason.

Unless I have your intentions all wrong, in which case I'd like to know exactly what the point of your post was? (Though with your intellect I'm sure you'll find a way to dig yourself out of this with yet another explanation).

Sorry for the attack but this thread is less a discussion than it is 6 or 7 members running around a Mobius strip, and your post is glaringly rude in a sea of rudeness. I expect much more from you!

Personally, I did not take any offense to his post. I look at it as though I have learned something new.

EDIT:

I didn't think MrktMkr was trying to disprove your post (if he was, he should know better) but if you take it in that light I guess your retort was somewhat justified.

You are correct. I was not trying to prove/disprove anything. It was really a random search and I posted the first thing I could find.

Also, if I knew anything about the subject I certainly would not have quoted Wikipedia. Sorry, Famine, for any misunderstanding.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Because truth exists independent of the search for truth..

How do you know that? And even if you do, how is it relevant, except to our exsistance.

I think that too, but neither of us can prove it and that's my point.

I think you sell yourself short. I'm almost convinced you exsist.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yep. The bottlenose dolphin is genus Tursiops and the killer whale is genus Pseudorca, both belonging to the Delphinidae family and the Cetacea order.

Just as the wolf is genus Canis, the fox is genus Vulpes, both belonging to the Canidae family and the Carnivora order. Don't see many fox/wolf crosses though.

Hybrids can't reproduce. Ah Oh!, back to the evolutionary drawing ,or should I say "Ouija" board.

 

[Famine]

Yes, they can.

Female hybrids are almost always viable. Male hybrids not always so.

Look up some of the work about reintroducing the Quagga. Or this stuff about big cats. The Marozi - a naturally occurring leopard/lion hybrid with a small self-sustaining population - is particularly interesting.


Don't espouse that about which you know nothing. Bad facts are not facts.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Hybrids can't reproduce. Ah Oh!, back to the evolutionary drawing ,or should I say "Ouija" board.

Yes they can! It is fair to say that there is some infertility but it has been going on for centuries.

Systematic crossing of yak with other cattle has been recommended and practiced for many years; ancient documents indicate that yak have been crossed with common cattle (Bos taurus) for at least 3000 years. Documents from 11th century China (Zhou dynasty) suggest that crossing of yak with cattle by the Qing people gave benefits now recognized as heterosis.

The ability of hybrids to produce sperm increases gradually with successive generations. Although crossbreeding is generally restricted to the F1 and F2 generations, sperm production does not resume until at least the third backcross (15/16 yak or cattle), and often not until the fourth backcross.

Edit: Famine is quicker than me to reply

 

[Danoff]

I think you sell yourself short. I'm almost convinced you exsist.

I KNOW I do. But you can't.

How do you know that?

It's in the definition of truth. It isn't possible for truth not to exist independent of the search for truth.

And even if you do, how is it relevant, except to our exsistance.

...well it's relevant to your question of "which comes first, the question or the answer".

If truth exists, which I claim, then the answer comes first. Questions come when questioning minds exist. Questioning minds can't exist without truth but truth does not require anything to exist.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yes, they can.

Female hybrids are almost always viable. Male hybrids not always so.

Look up some of the work about reintroducing the Quagga. Or this stuff about big cats. The Marozi - a naturally occurring leopard/lion hybrid with a small self-sustaining population - is particularly interesting.


Don't espouse that about which you know nothing. Bad facts are not facts.

Just wanted to yank your chain a little there Famine ole boy.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I KNOW I do. But you can't..

Thats because I know I exsist.

It's in the definition of truth. It isn't possible for truth not to exist independent of the search for truth
...well it's relevant to your question of "which comes first, the question or the answer".
If truth exists, which I claim, then the answer comes first. Questions come when questioning minds exist. Questioning minds can't exist without truth but truth does not require anything to exist.

I think we have come to a dead end on this. A good time to go play some GT4.
I shall return. Whoops, LORD willing of course.

 

[PS]

I'm starting to think that SCJ doesn't realise that 1) dodging questions with pithy remarks will get him nowhere, and 2) that danoff is (I really hope) kidding about the whole virtual reality thing. What he's basically saying is that you can never be 100% sure of anything- even your own existence, for we could just be energy floating around somewhere using life and human bodies simply as a medium to communicate, and learn through what those other energies tell us and put into our heads. And also, if someone has a mental sickness, (ie they see see people flying around in thes sky or see people or something) then they won't know it. They don't realise they're sick, because they truly believe what they're seeing, without realising it's a figment of their imahination. Heck, this keyboard could just be a chemical imbalance in my brain right now and you could be the cobweb in the corner of my ceiling as far as I'm aware.

As for the Ouija board, what he's saying is that people are faking the answers they get because they can see the letters. When they're blindfolded and the board is turned around, they can not create a bias for whatever answer they want, and it therefore comes out as nonsense, thus proving Ouija boards to be complete nonsense.

What Famine is saying about the interspecies mating, is that only very similar animals which are physically capable of mating with each other will ever produce offspring. And tell me, SCJ, without looking it up, what is a Hyena (ie cat, dog, bird species etc)? Or a jellyfish for that matter?

And yes, some hybrid fruit is pretty crazy- even the Yukon Gold Potatoe is a hybrid. I'm not sure what of, but I know it was genetically engineered right here in U of Guelph. And has anyone here ever had "pomello"? I think it's orange and grapefruit combined. They're freakin huge.

On the note of the bible:chickflick movie, what danoff is saying that a medium of communication or entertainment can be very moving or lifelike- which still doesn't make it true. www.bonsaikitten.com

 

[PS]

How do you know that? And even if you do, how is it relevant, except to our exsistance.



I think you sell yourself short. I'm almost convinced you exsist.

You may be convinced, but for all I know you may be bi-polar or schizophrenic and you could be imagining him or I, without even knowing it. In fact, you could be in a padded cell right now, pumped full of prescription drugs, off in your own little world. There's a movie with Kevin Spacey, Identity I think it's called. I STRONGLY recommend you go see it. And um...if my above post is kind of late...I think I only read the second last page. But it still stands nonetheless.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Since no one acknowledged my Derren Brown reference I'm going to add a link to a piece of film from him showing the power of belief.
More specifically, unquestioning belief.

This clip is not a set up, the woman is not a "stooge" but she utterly believes in this "magic" doll. It exposes Voodoo, but the point is still valid here.

He chooses her, because :

For this trick of the mind I have chosen someone who is convinced by New Age philosophies and alternative medicine. There's nothing wrong in being open-minded about claims that crystals, spells or psychic phenomena have the power to heal, as long as you're prepared to test them. If not, you could find yourself being conned.

The Magic Doll

**Its a Real Media file**

 

[Anderton Prime]

Too bad, I deleted Real Player as soon as I got my computer. I hate it. Is there another format you could include?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Too bad, I deleted Real Player as soon as I got my computer. I hate it. Is there another format you could include?

I know what you mean, that's why I wrote the warning I hate it too, with its constant updates and checking the web rubbish...but I gave in and installed it again. I've got version 10.5 now which behaves itself along with Zone Alarm.

Sorry but the clips are streams, I don't think they're available in other formats.
It is worth seeing, and his other clips are too, so you might twist your own arm and give in to installing it

 

[Famine]

Just wanted to yank your chain a little there Famine ole boy.

So you made up a lie with no basis in reality and presented it as fact? You're getting the hang of this "religion" thing, aren't you?

You haven't yet answered my other other Ouija Board question either:

If I get a big piece of paper, write the letters of the alphabet, the Georgian numerals and some punctuation marks (I might conjure up a grammatically correct spirit) and put a kid's mug upside down on it, can I suddenly contact the Devil?

Would I have trouble communicating with spirits older than 400 years, given the natural evolution of the written language and the prevalence of one number counting system over another?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm starting to think that SCJ doesn't realise that 1) dodging questions with pithy remarks will get him nowhere, and 2) that danoff is (I really hope) kidding about the whole virtual reality thing. What he's basically saying is that you can never be 100% sure of anything- even your own existence, for we could just be energy floating around somewhere using life and human bodies simply as a medium to communicate, and learn through what those other energies tell us and put into our heads. And also, if someone has a mental sickness, (ie they see see people flying around in thes sky or see people or something) then they won't know it. They don't realise they're sick, because they truly believe what they're seeing, without realising it's a figment of their imahination. Heck, this keyboard could just be a chemical imbalance in my brain right now and you could be the cobweb in the corner of my ceiling as far as I'm aware.

Unless I'm mistaken, I havn't had a monopoly on pithy remarks. What was it?"the amusement park of religion". As I have said before, he has a right to express his opinion just like everyone else. I wasn't offended by it. As a matter of fact I thought, it was rather witty. Even though, as has been said, this can be pretty touchy subject matter, I'm not opposed to poking a little fun sometimes.
BTW one thing I can say for Famine, thus far he hasn't tried to run off and hide behind this "everything is imaginary" protracted nonsense, as some have.

As for the Ouija board, what he's saying is that people are faking the answers they get because they can see the letters. When they're blindfolded and the board is turned around, they can not create a bias for whatever answer they want, and it therefore comes out as nonsense, thus proving Ouija boards to be complete nonsense.

I realize that. I'm saying there is more to it than that.

What Famine is saying about the interspecies mating, is that only very similar animals which are physically capable of mating with each other will ever produce offspring. And tell me, SCJ, without looking it up, what is a Hyena (ie cat, dog, bird species etc)? Or a jellyfish for that matter?

I'm not sure what your looking for on this or what difference it makes?

And yes, some hybrid fruit is pretty crazy- even the Yukon Gold Potatoe is a hybrid. I'm not sure what of, but I know it was genetically engineered right here in U of Guelph. And has anyone here ever had "pomello"? I think it's orange and grapefruit combined. They're freakin huge.

My point exactly. The Yukon Gold didn't just happen.

On the note of the bible:chickflick movie, what danoff is saying that a medium of communication or entertainment can be very moving or lifelike- which still doesn't make it true. www.bonsaikitten.com

I already ageed with him on that.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So you made up a lie with no basis in reality and presented it as fact? You're getting the hang of this "religion" thing, aren't you?

You haven't yet answered my other other Ouija Board question either:

I didn't make it up. A mule is niether male or female and cannot reproduce. So my comment has some basis in fact.
Yes I did answer it. Its on your signature.

 

[Famine]

The mule is neither male nor female? What?

A male mule is sterile. A female mule is not always sterile. You can breed from female mules

The fact that some hybrid animals cannot breed does not convey the fact that ALL hybrid animals cannot breed. Some raisins are covered in chocolate - do you see?

Hybrids can't reproduce. Ah Oh!, back to the evolutionary drawing ,or should I say "Ouija" board.

Fact is, many hybrids CAN reproduce, with the originating species and themselves (specifically the Marozi). So your statement had no basis in reality and you made it up - presumably on the basis that you'd heard mules didn't have a gender and couldn't reproduce (despite that being wrong).


And you haven't answered my second Ouija board question. Can I take a non-possessed piece of paper, a wholly unsatanic pen and a practically saintly kids' drinking mug and contact the Devil with them?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You may be convinced, but for all I know you may be bi-polar or schizophrenic and you could be imagining him or I, without even knowing it. In fact, you could be in a padded cell right now, pumped full of prescription drugs, off in your own little world. There's a movie with Kevin Spacey, Identity I think it's called. I STRONGLY recommend you go see it. And um...if my above post is kind of late...I think I only read the second last page. But it still stands nonetheless.

I think you may be watching too many movies

 

[Danoff]

BTW one thing I can say for Famine, thus far he hasn't tried to run off and hide behind this "everything is imaginary" protracted nonsense, as some have.

If you're not going to pay attention we're not going to get anywhere.

You said science is not truly provable. I almost nothing is truly provable.

Clear enough?

Now ask yourself, why is that important? Why is it important that almost nothing is truly provable?

Take a step back and reread my posts. I want you to get a few things figured out.

1) I never said everything is imaginary. I said almost everything could be imaginary. There's a big difference.
2) I never said I don't exist, I said quite the opposite.

You've misunderstood almost everything I wrote, but I don't think the problem lies with me as others have had no trouble following. There are two options:

1) You're too dense to figure out what I'm talking about.
2) You don't want to listen to anyone else so you're purposely acting dense.

You pick.


(Is anyone going to respond to what I said about knowing that your book is the right book to follow? Am I talking to myself here?)

 

[Famine]

And of course every word danoff said is true - certainly with relation to metaphysics.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one around to hear, does it make a sound?

That's just step one of these types of questions. Without looking, what exists right behind you, right now? Are you sure? Does anything exist that you cannot perceive? Do I exist, or am I danoff's other login? What exists when you close your eyes? If you blink does everything temporarily cease to exist then suddenly get called back into existence when your eyes re-open?

The problem is, we mere humans can only perceive existence at it appears to our senses - by sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. If we can't do any of these, we tend to ignore it - would we be aware that air existed on a still day?

But above all, we are the only ones that can perceive ourselves (although chimps and pigs show similar self-awareness). I am the only one who can perceive my thoughts at any given time, but I cannot perceive others' thoughts. Ever. I think, therefore I am. I don't know if you think, therefore you might not be.