I missed that part....you seem to know a lot about God.
Aldous was saying that the existence of God implies moral laws (the reason for being), and science does not. So he prefers to go with science simply because he does not want this world to have meaning, and then he tells you why that is his preference.
I made no comment here about my own views on science, but for the record, I trust science to present me the facts. I don't always trust the theories it concludes.
God wants us to enjoy and have satisfaction in our sexual relationships within marriage. Have you read Song of Solomon in the Old Testament? Its like a romantic poem...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=NIV
I missed that part....you seem to know a lot about God.
My purpose in speaking with you was to suggest that the feeling you have that there is a truth that is goodness is real, and that it is real whether or not you believe in God but that it is the real aim of the Christian religion is ego death. Now that you tell me you use your religion to create ego life and self flattery there is nothing much for me to say. The problem you will have is this. Because you see folk who have vane standards of self worth as fools, you will never look at the vanity of your own standards because you will become a fool yourself, according to those false standards. Your contempt of fools has condemned you to be one. This is how you hate yourself and poison your own life. That weaselly coward is you. There are no fools in this world if you have been forgiven. There is only love.
I mean arbitrary.Do you mean independent or unilateral?
This isn't a rebuttal to my arguments.If so, what would be a reasonable alternative? Who's authority or what scientific manual should God have consulted prior to creating the universe?
Says you. Are you saying god cannot create a random universe in which life can exist? Where is the logical contradiction of such a universe?I see. What I mean by those things is that he is the author of those particular "constraints." He created them so that for example, the negatively charged electrons in the atoms of your body do not get sucked in to the positively charged nuclei. If these laws were random, life would have no chance to exist.
Insufficient. You haven't demonstrated that all that was not created by human hands was created at all.By creation I mean all that was created not by human hands...
Speak for yourself. I choose not to remain willfully ignorant.This is what I mean by putting God in a box. Reverence would suggest that if there was a God, and he chose what to reveal and what not to, that all we can do is accept what he tells us.
Why should we believe that he is?If he is infinitely wiser then us,
I need to do no such thing.we need to trust that there is a purpose for why we weren't told certain things.
But complexity develops spontaneously in nature, with no apparent creator. We've seen it. I can demonstrate it. It isn't hard to swallow at all.I know this is hard to swallow, but I don't know why it would be any harder to swallow then the idea that complexity without an intelligent creator.
I have never suggested any such thing.If we try to put him in a box and say that he needs to bend to our will by telling us everything we want to know, that would no longer make him sovereign.
Yes it is.Thats not a test.
I guess I have more forethought than your god does.You're asking after the fact for something to be included in a book when Moses died 3500 years ago...
LOL...I guess it depends on whether you're in a Catholic sect or not.Are you telling me that enjoying sex is OK?
...and I'm sure you're better looking too! :awe:I guess I have more forethought than your god does.
LOL...I guess it depends on whether you're in a Catholic sect or not.
Ok, so the reason for being is moral laws (i'm going to go with morality laws instead since that's more correct) and science provides no morality laws so it provides no meaning for being? Well of course science doesn't provide THAT, it's a method for gaining information, that is all that science is.
When you hear "sceintific theory" that means that it's a theory that someone has come up with by using the scientific method to examine a hypothesis.
And you like the facts of science (of which there are none, science don't deal with facts, only laws and theories) but you don't like the theories (which is as close as science gets to facts)?
Clearly you haven't got the first clue of what science is at all.
Point is that morality laws hurt people while the "crimes" they are against hurt no one, they are the opposite of regular laws and they are not anything that any sane man can think is a good thing.
Thats exactly what Aldous is talking about. He's speaking for the agnostic perspective and thats why I brought up his quote. He takes the conviction of there not being any universal moral absolutes to its logical conclusion - That there is no meaning or purpose to life and there is no guilt nor shame in anything so we're free to act as we please.
For your sake I hope you are either very cynical or very young. [/quote}
No, science does not deal with facts, only laws and the attempted explanations of occurances, i suppose the closest thing to a fact in science would be evolution since it happens.
No man is an island. You make decisions every day with moral and ethical consequences that affect your neighbors, friends, family. The promise of crimes that are victimless is an empty bill of goods wrought by society's perverse fascination with its vices. If you've ever had to contemplate a daughter getting involved in prostitution you might appreciate that better.
...Perhaps a generation from now, not even that will get many people to bat an eye.
Of course i do, that is what our inherent empathy and conscience leads us to do, you have said you have none, that you are effectively a psychopath that will kill and rape if you can get away with it (losing your faith) and don't you dare compare yourself to me because i'm not like that at all, i have empathy and i have a conscience.
There are no victimless crimes as long as there are no morality laws, masturbation isn't a victimless crime because it's not a crime, neither is adultery or sodomy, you have to understand that no society except Iran and Saudi Arabia or their likes are in support of your morality crime legislations.
My daughter made better choices than yours, she never had to contemplate that because her father isn't a condemning son of a twat who rather imposes than proposes and rather loves his child than abandons her for her choices.
I suppose that according to you she's a whore though since she's living with a man and having her first child in two months...
There are definently moral absolutes but there are no laws of morality except when you go beyond humanity and invent them from imagination, or a book of imaginary beings.
No, science does not deal with facts, only laws and the attempted explanations of occurances, i suppose the closest thing to a fact in science would be evolution since it happens.
Of course i do, that is what our inherent empathy and conscience leads us to do, you have said you have none, that you are effectively a psychopath that will kill and rape if you can get away with it (losing your faith) and don't you dare compare yourself to me because i'm not like that at all, i have empathy and i have a conscience.
There are no victimless crimes as long as there are no morality laws, masturbation isn't a victimless crime because it's not a crime, neither is adultery or sodomy, you have to understand that no society except Iran and Saudi Arabia or their likes are in support of your morality crime legislations.
My daughter made better choices than yours, she never had to contemplate that because her father isn't a condemning son of a twat who rather imposes than proposes and rather loves his child than abandons her for her choices.
I suppose that according to you she's a whore though since she's living with a man and having her first child in two months...
Science is all about facts, aka observations, and then you draw conclusions from them. Otherwise without facts its pie in the sky.
I didn't mean to imply that was a real life situation. I actually have two sons, ages 1 and 3. I too can empathize and I most definitely have a conscience, but I've seen how easily people can betray that if you look at all the 20th century atrocities in the name of nihilism. All I'm saying is that I don't trust myself because none of us are different from the Hitlers and Maos of the world, perhaps in degree, but not in kind.
If you DO have empathy and a conscience, then you wouldn't go out and rape and murder if you didn't believe in a god and the judgement you put on Howard was wrong and IF you have a conscience you know you should apologise for that.
You want to know what i think about religion and belieivers of god, like LTTE (Hindus) IRA, RIRA, LRA and ETA (Christians) or Al Quaida, Al Aqsa, the Talibans?
Whats the message number on that one so I can see what I said?
So you're going to ignore all the millions of murders committed by Hitler, Stalin, Mussollini, Mao, Pot, etc etc throughout fascist and communist Europe and Asia so you can equate the Christian God with terrorism where the number of total deaths is probably 1% at most?
Hitler and Mussolini were Catholic, Stalin founded the Russian Catholic Church.
*****
You would learn well to take the time to note your wrongdoings and remember them so i suggest you go back and look at what you said to him. It was today and you can't even remember it? You're pathetic.
The word fool is a judgmental word, and not a gentle one. I shouldn't use it often, but I was speaking generally about vanity and the world's standards, not a particular person.
The aim of the Christian religion is to give glory to the LORD, and the aim of evangelism is the preach the concepts of sin, repentance, grace and renewal in Christ so that God's people will all come and worship the LORD.
Can you elaborate on the second bolded point?
...and I'm sure you're better looking too! :awe:
So you believe Hitler, Muss, and Stalin killed in the name of Catholicism? You are indeed blinded by your rage.
I remember everything I said, as a matter of fact I think I know what message you're referring to, I just don't want to be presumptuous because if I'm right, you feel the way you do because you haven't read back far enough to understand the context.
I could but I see no point. Your teacup is full of your tea.
Aldous was saying that the existence of God implies moral laws (the reason for being), and science does not. So he prefers to go with science simply because he does not want this world to have meaning, and then he tells you why that is his preference.
I made no comment here about my own views on science, but for the record, I trust science to present me the facts. I don't always trust the theories it concludes.
God wants us to enjoy and have satisfaction in our sexual relationships within marriage. Have you read Song of Solomon in the Old Testament? Its like a romantic poem...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=NIV
You know that the US is often still called a Christian nation, but many people check that checkbox not because they consider themselves devout churchgoers, but because they came from a Christian or Catholic heritage. In the religion section of Wiki's article on Hitler, you see what he thinks of Christianity as he grew older. When he started the holocaust, he was no doubt an atheist according to that article. Muss and Stalin were definitely atheists (with the aforementioned catholic background) and you know what you're dealing with going east of Europe.Of course not, but the point was that they were not atheists.
Oh i have and i still do believe you owe him an apoloty, unless you don't feel bad about what you called him for no good reason which you have later on acknowledged when saying that neither you nor anyone not being a psychopath do have empathy and conscience and won't just do whatever the fuck you like when you can get away with it.
Perhaps it is you that don't understand how these posts are tied in together, i went with what Howard said and your response to him and you have admitted that you were wrong, now apologise or be the silly little twat that couldn't.