On Atheism vs. Christianity

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,293
6,352
126
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CT: Indeed, but when you have the power to materialize any reality you will, it is nonsensical to claim that a reality would materialize contrary to that will. If you truely willed something different, then it would be. That's what omnipotence means.

M: Don't you think you should be omnipotent to know what omnipotence means or at a minimum, omniscient?
"Omnipotent" is a word in human language. We decide what it means, therefore. If you would like to critique my usage, then by all means, feel free. It isn't a word that I even believe to have representation in reality, and my reductio is premised entirely on how I perceive the word to be used by theists.

My turn to say, what does how theists see that word have to do with the price of tea? You are arguing about whether their elephant is pink or green. Just because these poor mutes can't speak or define what they feel, has nothing at all to do with the reality of their experience. They are talking about something that can't be put into words with words they were trained to say. So what? They don't know what they are talking about and neither do you. Hehe! You might as well explain to a drunk that he's drunk of beer, not wine. He's still f'ing drunk. God damn, can't you see that's a beer bottle that's brown and not a nice green bottle of wine? And look it has foam on the top. You stupid f'ing Christian, that beer not wine. OK OK you win, let me give you a kiss.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I'm just thankful he didn't call me a mentally handicapped Vincent Van Gogh or I would have cut off my ear.

I thought you would have lopped off both ears by now!

I never thought to consider that he had two ears. He didn't indicate he had a choice of which to cut off. I guess he figured it was obvious and that he'd cut of the right one.

 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay

That is sweet, thanks.
I can't speak for the others you mentioned but for me I'd only say that no matter the words you directed to me I take no offense, feel no angst or ill will. I assume you mean what you say and have reason for saying it. I call that opinion and defend your right to express it.

Thanks a bunch. My point is your incoherence -- it makes you unconvincing. To be completely honest, I don't much respect the position of theists because I think it's a bit nutso, but nonetheless I'm all ears when it comes to reasonable discussion about beliefs. When it degrades into impromptu beat poetry readings in which you seem to be discovering your own brand of philosophy as you go, I lose interest. Not that my interest should be the lynch pin of the discussion, I'm just saying.

As for Moonbeam's article... well, let's just say I am in fever from tasting your sweetmeat. The parables may be quaint, but they devolve into senselessness. The latter portion is a simple, reworded repetition of a mantra, "Reason hinders the soul," and demonstrates this with baseless quotations, couplets, and stories that all say the same thing. Using reason, bring me to a point where it makes for me to abandon it, and I will consider it. Our Persian friend Rumi failed.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Well . There are forces at work in the world who do try to deceave man . A good example is word meaning (definition)

When I was young The Word Gay was NOT definned as homosexual . MAN changed the meaning .

This really isn't important to man . But itsa deception of great value to the slavers.

The Word SOUL has nothing to do with Spirit. Nothing . A soul is Flesh !!!!! Its been redifined . But if you read scripture you have to be carefull and mindfull when the word was redifined. Talking about the Holy Spirit is very tabboo in faith . If you were to label that word usage to (holy Sou)l . Your spirit would be lost.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I see you guys are struggling with omnipresent. The dialogue here on subject is good.

THe Holy Spirit what is it? Its GODS power. Your struggling with omni present. Try wrapping your head around omnipotent. God can change his nature. Now this is as far as I go on that Subject . I am very close to having gone to far already.

Find out what the Living Word said when asked about Sin and the unforgivable sin .

So Christians or so called, beware and mindful of this subject matter.

 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I had to seperate these so I had to add another thread. Can't be to carefull.

Its very important you understand this . Research it . Mans spirit is the Holy Spirit all things come from God. So for man to redefine Soul to mean spirit is unclean and unforgivable. I see moon seems to think that the right brain has to do with spirit.

I can see how a none believer could say thay . But Again The living Word did say the Spirit resides between the Heart and Mind. You have to admitt our electronics inside us is amazing, Really high tech stuff. But never the less we run on electricity that comes from something. Define it if you will .
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,293
6,352
126
COB: As for Moonbeam's article... well, let's just say I am in fever from tasting your sweetmeat. The parables may be quaint, but they devolve into senselessness. The latter portion is a simple, reworded repetition of a mantra, "Reason hinders the soul," and demonstrates this with baseless quotations, couplets, and stories that all say the same thing. Using reason, bring me to a point where it makes for me to abandon it, and I will consider it. Our Persian friend Rumi failed.

M: Well, since you seem to like to think is terms of success and failure maybe a little fear of damnation will motivate you, hehe. Another little something from the web:

Revenge of the Right Brain

Logical and precise, left-brain thinking gave us the Information Age. Now comes the Conceptual Age - ruled by artistry, empathy, and emotion.

By Daniel H. Pink From Wired.Com

When I was a kid - growing up in a middle-class family, in the middle of America, in the middle of the 1970s - parents dished out a familiar plate of advice to their children: Get good grades, go to college, and pursue a profession that offers a decent standard of living and perhaps a dollop of prestige. If you were good at math and science, become a doctor. If you were better at English and history, become a lawyer. If blood grossed you out and your verbal skills needed work, become an accountant. Later, as computers appeared on desktops and CEOs on magazine covers, the youngsters who were really good at math and science chose high tech, while others flocked to business school, thinking that success was spelled MBA.

Tax attorneys. Radiologists. Financial analysts. Software engineers. Management guru Peter Drucker gave this cadre of professionals an enduring, if somewhat wonky, name: knowledge workers. These are, he wrote, "people who get paid for putting to work what one learns in school rather than for their physical strength or manual skill." What distinguished members of this group and enabled them to reap society's greatest rewards, was their "ability to acquire and to apply theoretical and analytic knowledge." And any of us could join their ranks. All we had to do was study hard and play by the rules of the meritocratic regime. That was the path to professional success and personal fulfillment.

But a funny thing happened while we were pressing our noses to the grindstone: The world changed. The future no longer belongs to people who can reason with computer-like logic, speed, and precision. It belongs to a different kind of person with a different kind of mind. Today - amid the uncertainties of an economy that has gone from boom to bust to blah - there's a metaphor that explains what's going on. And it's right inside our heads.

Scientists have long known that a neurological Mason-Dixon line cleaves our brains into two regions - the left and right hemispheres. But in the last 10 years, thanks in part to advances in functional magnetic resonance imaging, researchers have begun to identify more precisely how the two sides divide responsibilities. The left hemisphere handles sequence, literalness, and analysis. The right hemisphere, meanwhile, takes care of context, emotional expression, and synthesis. Of course, the human brain, with its 100 billion cells forging 1 quadrillion connections, is breathtakingly complex. The two hemispheres work in concert, and we enlist both sides for nearly everything we do. But the structure of our brains can help explain the contours of our times.

Until recently, the abilities that led to success in school, work, and business were characteristic of the left hemisphere. They were the sorts of linear, logical, analytical talents measured by SATs and deployed by CPAs. Today, those capabilities are still necessary. But they're no longer sufficient. In a world upended by outsourcing, deluged with data, and choked with choices, the abilities that matter most are now closer in spirit to the specialties of the right hemisphere - artistry, empathy, seeing the big picture, and pursuing the transcendent.

Beneath the nervous clatter of our half-completed decade stirs a slow but seismic shift. The Information Age we all prepared for is ending. Rising in its place is what I call the Conceptual Age, an era in which mastery of abilities that we've often overlooked and undervalued marks the fault line between who gets ahead and who falls behind.

To some of you, this shift - from an economy built on the logical, sequential abilities of the Information Age to an economy built on the inventive, empathic abilities of the Conceptual Age - sounds delightful. "You had me at hello!" I can hear the painters and nurses exulting. But to others, this sounds like a crock. "Prove it!" I hear the programmers and lawyers demanding.

OK. To convince you, I'll explain the reasons for this shift, using the mechanistic language of cause and effect.

The effect: the scales tilting in favor of right brain-style thinking. The causes: Asia, automation, and abundance.

Asia

Few issues today spark more controversy than outsourcing. Those squadrons of white-collar workers in India, the Philippines, and China are scaring the bejesus out of software jockeys across North America and Europe. According to Forrester Research, 1 in 9 jobs in the US information technology industry will move overseas by 2010. And it's not just tech work. Visit India's office parks and you'll see chartered accountants preparing American tax returns, lawyers researching American lawsuits, and radiologists reading CAT scans for US hospitals.

The reality behind the alarm is this: Outsourcing to Asia is overhyped in the short term, but underhyped in the long term. We're not all going to lose our jobs tomorrow. (The total number of jobs lost to offshoring so far represents less than 1 percent of the US labor force.) But as the cost of communicating with the other side of the globe falls essentially to zero, as India becomes (by 2010) the country with the most English speakers in the world, and as developing nations continue to mint millions of extremely capable knowledge workers, the professional lives of people in the West will change dramatically. If number crunching, chart reading, and code writing can be done for a lot less overseas and delivered to clients instantly via fiber-optic cable, that's where the work will go.

But these gusts of comparative advantage are blowing away only certain kinds of white-collar jobs - those that can be reduced to a set of rules, routines, and instructions. That's why narrow left-brain work such as basic computer coding, accounting, legal research, and financial analysis is migrating across the oceans. But that's also why plenty of opportunities remain for people and companies doing less routine work - programmers who can design entire systems, accountants who serve as life planners, and bankers expert less in the intricacies of Excel than in the art of the deal. Now that foreigners can do left-brain work cheaper, we in the US must do right-brain work better.

Last century, machines proved they could replace human muscle. This century, technologies are proving they can outperform human left brains - they can execute sequential, reductive, computational work better, faster, and more accurately than even those with the highest IQs. (Just ask chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov.)

Consider jobs in financial services. Stockbrokers who merely execute transactions are history. Online trading services and market makers do such work far more efficiently. The brokers who survived have morphed from routine order-takers to less easily replicated advisers, who can understand a client's broader financial objectives and even the client's emotions and dreams.

Or take lawyers. Dozens of inexpensive information and advice services are reshaping law practice. At CompleteCase.com, you can get an uncontested divorce for $249, less than a 10th of the cost of a divorce lawyer. Meanwhile, the Web is cracking the information monopoly that has long been the source of many lawyers' high incomes and professional mystique. Go to USlegalforms.com and you can download - for the price of two movie tickets - fill-in-the-blank wills, contracts, and articles of incorporation that used to reside exclusively on lawyers' hard drives. Instead of hiring a lawyer for 10 hours to craft a contract, consumers can fill out the form themselves and hire a lawyer for one hour to look it over. Consequently, legal abilities that can't be digitized - convincing a jury or understanding the subtleties of a negotiation - become more valuable.

Even computer programmers may feel the pinch. "In the old days," legendary computer scientist Vernor Vinge has said, "anybody with even routine skills could get a job as a programmer. That isn't true anymore. The routine functions are increasingly being turned over to machines." The result: As the scut work gets offloaded, engineers will have to master different aptitudes, relying more on creativity than competence.

Any job that can be reduced to a set of rules is at risk. If a $500-a-month accountant in India doesn't swipe your accounting job, TurboTax will. Now that computers can emulate left-hemisphere skills, we'll have to rely ever more on our right hemispheres.

Abundance

Our left brains have made us rich. Powered by armies of Drucker's knowledge workers, the information economy has produced a standard of living that would have been unfathomable in our grandparents' youth. Their lives were defined by scarcity. Ours are shaped by abundance. Want evidence? Spend five minutes at Best Buy. Or look in your garage. Owning a car used to be a grand American aspiration. Today, there are more automobiles in the US than there are licensed drivers - which means that, on average, everybody who can drive has a car of their own. And if your garage is also piled with excess consumer goods, you're not alone. Self-storage - a business devoted to housing our extra crap - is now a $17 billion annual industry in the US, nearly double Hollywood's yearly box office take.

But abundance has produced an ironic result. The Information Age has unleashed a prosperity that in turn places a premium on less rational sensibilities - beauty, spirituality, emotion. For companies and entrepreneurs, it's no longer enough to create a product, a service, or an experience that's reasonably priced and adequately functional. In an age of abundance, consumers demand something more. Check out your bathroom. If you're like a few million Americans, you've got a Michael Graves toilet brush or a Karim Rashid trash can that you bought at Target. Try explaining a designer garbage pail to the left side of your brain! Or consider illumination. Electric lighting was rare a century ago, but now it's commonplace. Yet in the US, candles are a $2 billion a year business - for reasons that stretch beyond the logical need for luminosity to a prosperous country's more inchoate desire for pleasure and transcendence.

Liberated by this prosperity but not fulfilled by it, more people are searching for meaning. From the mainstream embrace of such once-exotic practices as yoga and meditation to the rise of spirituality in the workplace to the influence of evangelism in pop culture and politics, the quest for meaning and purpose has become an integral part of everyday life. And that will only intensify as the first children of abundance, the baby boomers, realize that they have more of their lives behind them than ahead. In both business and personal life, now that our left-brain needs have largely been sated, our right-brain yearnings will demand to be fed.

As the forces of Asia, automation, and abundance strengthen and accelerate, the curtain is rising on a new era, the Conceptual Age. If the Industrial Age was built on people's backs, and the Information Age on people's left hemispheres, the Conceptual Age is being built on people's right hemispheres. We've progressed from a society of farmers to a society of factory workers to a society of knowledge workers. And now we're progressing yet again - to a society of creators and empathizers, pattern recognizers, and meaning makers.

But let me be clear: The future is not some Manichaean landscape in which individuals are either left-brained and extinct or right-brained and ecstatic - a land in which millionaire yoga instructors drive BMWs and programmers scrub counters at Chick-fil-A. Logical, linear, analytic thinking remains indispensable. But it's no longer enough.

To flourish in this age, we'll need to supplement our well-developed high tech abilities with aptitudes that are "high concept" and "high touch." High concept involves the ability to create artistic and emotional beauty, to detect patterns and opportunities, to craft a satisfying narrative, and to come up with inventions the world didn't know it was missing. High touch involves the capacity to empathize, to understand the subtleties of human interaction, to find joy in one's self and to elicit it in others, and to stretch beyond the quotidian in pursuit of purpose and meaning.

Developing these high concept, high touch abilities won't be easy for everyone. For some, the prospect seems unattainable. Fear not (or at least fear less). The sorts of abilities that now matter most are fundamentally human attributes. After all, back on the savannah, our caveperson ancestors weren't plugging numbers into spreadsheets or debugging code. But they were telling stories, demonstrating empathy, and designing innovations. These abilities have always been part of what it means to be human. It's just that after a few generations in the Information Age, many of our high concept, high touch muscles have atrophied. The challenge is to work them back into shape.

Want to get ahead today? Forget what your parents told you. Instead, do something foreigners can't do cheaper. Something computers can't do faster. And something that fills one of the nonmaterial, transcendent desires of an abundant age. In other words, go right, young man and woman, go right.
 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Moonbeam, I mean only that your Rumi piece failed to reach me in what I assumed was its intent. Damnation does not scare me. I am already damned a thousand times over.

As interesting as it is, this new article adds nothing at all to the present discussion unless you're really stretching. Left brain vs. right brain is not the same as reason vs. faith. One can be both highly creative and analytical (and, as the article explains, this combination is valuable and will become more so as rote tasks become more commonly outsourced to cheap specialists), whereas belief in the supernatural is in direct contention with (or at least is not supported by) logic applied to the observable world.

My reading of this story does not indicate any implication that there will be some emerging global market for theists, or that more analytical atheists face being sidelined at the dawn of this new "Conceptual Age." What are you trying to say by citing this?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,293
6,352
126
Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Moonbeam, I mean only that your Rumi piece failed to reach me in what I assumed was its intent. Damnation does not scare me. I am already damned a thousand times over.

As interesting as it is, this new article adds nothing at all to the present discussion unless you're really stretching. Left brain vs. right brain is not the same as reason vs. faith. One can be both highly creative and analytical (and, as the article explains, this combination is valuable and will become more so as rote tasks become more commonly outsourced to cheap specialists), whereas belief in the supernatural is in direct contention with (or at least is not supported by) logic applied to the observable world.

My reading of this story does not indicate any implication that there will be some emerging global market for theists, or that more analytical atheists face being sidelined at the dawn of this new "Conceptual Age." What are you trying to say by citing this?

Can you identify for me how creativity emerges from analytical logic? And you will note the article spoke of spiritualism not mono-theism.

Left brain : Logic : Secularism as Right brained : Creativity : Spiritualism
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CT: Indeed, but when you have the power to materialize any reality you will, it is nonsensical to claim that a reality would materialize contrary to that will. If you truely willed something different, then it would be. That's what omnipotence means.

M: Don't you think you should be omnipotent to know what omnipotence means or at a minimum, omniscient?
"Omnipotent" is a word in human language. We decide what it means, therefore. If you would like to critique my usage, then by all means, feel free. It isn't a word that I even believe to have representation in reality, and my reductio is premised entirely on how I perceive the word to be used by theists.

My turn to say, what does how theists see that word have to do with the price of tea? You are arguing about whether their elephant is pink or green. Just because these poor mutes can't speak or define what they feel, has nothing at all to do with the reality of their experience. They are talking about something that can't be put into words with words they were trained to say. So what? They don't know what they are talking about and neither do you. Hehe! You might as well explain to a drunk that he's drunk of beer, not wine. He's still f'ing drunk. God damn, can't you see that's a beer bottle that's brown and not a nice green bottle of wine? And look it has foam on the top. You stupid f'ing Christian, that beer not wine. OK OK you win, let me give you a kiss.

But the jabberwock rides roughshod over the briar rabbit's wooden nickel. My pretty pony never gave a ride to Rainbow Brite, even though she flamed him like a model of a woman scorned. Here she comes, just a-walkin' down the street singing doo-wah diddy, diddy-dum, diddy-doo. Your pink elephants went on parade and nobody came to see. It's deja vu all over again.
 

imported_inspire

Senior member
Jun 29, 2006
986
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Moonbeam, I mean only that your Rumi piece failed to reach me in what I assumed was its intent. Damnation does not scare me. I am already damned a thousand times over.

As interesting as it is, this new article adds nothing at all to the present discussion unless you're really stretching. Left brain vs. right brain is not the same as reason vs. faith. One can be both highly creative and analytical (and, as the article explains, this combination is valuable and will become more so as rote tasks become more commonly outsourced to cheap specialists), whereas belief in the supernatural is in direct contention with (or at least is not supported by) logic applied to the observable world.

My reading of this story does not indicate any implication that there will be some emerging global market for theists, or that more analytical atheists face being sidelined at the dawn of this new "Conceptual Age." What are you trying to say by citing this?

Can you identify for me how creativity emerges from analytical logic? And you will note the article spoke of spiritualism not mono-theism.

Left brain : Logic : Secularism as Right brained : Creativity : Spiritualism

Not to intrude here, but logical thought often leads to abstraction, which seems, in itself, a form of creativity. When logic can suspend what we have taken fo granted, it allows us to look at things in new, creative ways. Einstein's relativity revised centuries of Newtonian physics in a similar manner. Left and right, logic and creativity, yin and yang - they may all be at odds with one another in some fashion, but their relationship is not mutually disjoint.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,293
6,352
126
Here is another little something from the web you may like:

Excerpt from Bring Me the Rhinoceros
Fromthe Introduction: An Impossible Question Means A Journey


This book offers an unusual path into happiness. It doesn?t encourage you to strive for things or manipulate people or change yourself into an improved, more polished version of you. Instead, it suggests a way to approach happiness indirectly by unbuilding, unmaking, tossing overboard, and generally subverting unhappiness. And even this indirect approach is not based on a plan. It?s hard to plan for something that takes you beyond what you can imagine, which is what this method is designed to do. The method described in this book is based on Zen koans (?ko-an?) and has been in use for a long time in East Asia, though in the United States, Europe, and Australia it is just getting established. The goal of the Zen koan is enlightenment, which is a profound change of heart. This change of heart makes the world seem like a different place; with it comes a freedom of mind and an awareness of the joy and kindness underlying daily life.

Koans are not intended to prescribe a particular kind of happiness or right way to live. They don?t teach you to assemble or make something that didn?t exist before. Many psychological and spiritual approaches rely on an engineering metaphor and hope to make your mind more predictable and controllable. Koans go the other way. They encourage you to make an ally of the unpredictability of the mind and to approach your life more as a work of art. The surprise they offer is the one that art offers: inside unpredictability you will find not chaos, but beauty. Koans light up a life that may have been dormant in you; they hold out the possibility of transformation even if you are trying to address unclear or apparently insoluble problems.

To begin with, here are seven things to notice about koans: Koans show you that you can depend on creative moves. Usually people think of a creative leap as something like one, two, three, four . . . six. With koans a creative leap is more like one, two, three, four . . . rhinoceros. What if happiness were a creative activity, like writing a poem? You cannot know where the next line of a poem will come from and you can?t force it, yet there is a discipline that helps. When you attend in the right way, the poem?s next line really does arrive out of nowhere. In the same way, through a koan, happiness can arrive out of nowhere.


Koans encourage doubt and curiosity. Koans don?t ask you to believe anything offensive to reason. You can have any religion and use koans. You can have no religion and use koans. Koans don?t take away painful beliefs and put positive beliefs in their place. Koans just take away the painful beliefs and so provide freedom. What you do with that freedom is up to you.

Koans rely on uncertainty as a path to happiness. If you set off after happiness thinking that you know what you need, you will always end up with something that meets that need. The problem here is that when you are unhappy, it is as if you are in prison, and in that narrow cell you think of happiness with an inmate?s mind. You might imagine a more comfy cell, consider painting the walls a nicer color?rose, perhaps?and getting a new sofa. Koans don?t support the interior decoration project; they demolish the walls.


Koans will undermine your reasons and your explanations. If you have a reason for happiness, then that happiness can be taken away. The person you love could leave, the job could stop being interesting. If you have a reason for loving life, what happens if that reason fails? With koans you may find that life and love are so strong and vivid that they can?t be explained or justified. Koans open a happiness that comes for no good reason. That happiness exists before reasons have appeared in the universe.


Koans lead you to see life as funny rather than tragic. Well, which would you rather? This is one of their delights. For example, an earnest visitor asked a Chinese master, ?Where do we go when we die??
?I shall go straight to hell,? said the old master.
?You?? said the questioner, ?A good Zen master, why would you go to hell??
?If I don?t, who will teach you??


Koans will change your idea of who you are, and this will require courage. If you are used to living in a small room and suddenly discover a wide meadow, you might feel unsafe. Everyone thinks that they want happiness, but they might not. They might rather keep their stories about who they are and about what is impossible. Happiness is not an add-on to what you already are; it requires you to become a different person from the one who set off seeking it.


Koans uncover a hidden kindness in life. Koans show a path in which kindness is part of the foundation of the mind; not one of its accoutrements, nor something to be cultivated. If it were an attainment, kindness could be taken away or lost. When you unpack all your motives and other people?s motives and get to the bottom of things, you find love. I know that this is a shocking thing to say but I will try to show you how it is true.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,293
6,352
126
Originally posted by: inspire
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Moonbeam, I mean only that your Rumi piece failed to reach me in what I assumed was its intent. Damnation does not scare me. I am already damned a thousand times over.

As interesting as it is, this new article adds nothing at all to the present discussion unless you're really stretching. Left brain vs. right brain is not the same as reason vs. faith. One can be both highly creative and analytical (and, as the article explains, this combination is valuable and will become more so as rote tasks become more commonly outsourced to cheap specialists), whereas belief in the supernatural is in direct contention with (or at least is not supported by) logic applied to the observable world.

My reading of this story does not indicate any implication that there will be some emerging global market for theists, or that more analytical atheists face being sidelined at the dawn of this new "Conceptual Age." What are you trying to say by citing this?

Can you identify for me how creativity emerges from analytical logic? And you will note the article spoke of spiritualism not mono-theism.

Left brain : Logic : Secularism as Right brained : Creativity : Spiritualism

Not to intrude here, but logical thought often leads to abstraction, which seems, in itself, a form of creativity. When logic can suspend what we have taken fo granted, it allows us to look at things in new, creative ways. Einstein's relativity revised centuries of Newtonian physics in a similar manner. Left and right, logic and creativity, yin and yang - they may all be at odds with one another in some fashion, but their relationship is not mutually disjoint.

How can you intrude on the unbroken onesess of all. Surely you conld not have arrived here but on que. You are happening.

Abstraction can mean numerous things like a state of mental revere or of symbolic representation. So I am not exactly certain what you mean by logic leading to abstraction, especially if you imply that you have to suspend logic to achieve a different perspective which is exactly the point I have been making or Rumi. I had at one point earlier even considered bring Einstein's discovery in as an example, hehe. Einstein jumped off of logic and jumped onto a moonbeam and dang if time didn't stand still.
 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Moonbeam, I mean only that your Rumi piece failed to reach me in what I assumed was its intent. Damnation does not scare me. I am already damned a thousand times over.

As interesting as it is, this new article adds nothing at all to the present discussion unless you're really stretching. Left brain vs. right brain is not the same as reason vs. faith. One can be both highly creative and analytical (and, as the article explains, this combination is valuable and will become more so as rote tasks become more commonly outsourced to cheap specialists), whereas belief in the supernatural is in direct contention with (or at least is not supported by) logic applied to the observable world.

My reading of this story does not indicate any implication that there will be some emerging global market for theists, or that more analytical atheists face being sidelined at the dawn of this new "Conceptual Age." What are you trying to say by citing this?

Can you identify for me how creativity emerges from analytical logic? And you will note the article spoke of spiritualism not mono-theism.

Left brain : Logic : Secularism as Right brained : Creativity : Spiritualism

The article specifically mentions that both hemispheres are typically in use for many activities. I don't think it's as simple as "Left brain = secular, right brain = spiritual", and even if was, it doesn't necessarily follow that a revival of creativity in the workplace means that spiritual faith is any more or less valid, or that the beliefs of theists (or "spiritualists" if you prefer?) will hold any more weight in the future than they do now.

However, I am attracted to the corollary notion that spiritualism requires creativity because it's not based on reality.

I still don't understand your investment in this article and I'm wondering if I should waste my time with yet another you've posted. Is this the shotgun approach, or are these in any way relevant in supporting your views?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Originally posted by: LunarRay

That is sweet, thanks.
I can't speak for the others you mentioned but for me I'd only say that no matter the words you directed to me I take no offense, feel no angst or ill will. I assume you mean what you say and have reason for saying it. I call that opinion and defend your right to express it.

Thanks a bunch. My point is your incoherence -- it makes you unconvincing. To be completely honest, I don't much respect the position of theists because I think it's a bit nutso, but nonetheless I'm all ears when it comes to reasonable discussion about beliefs. When it degrades into impromptu beat poetry readings in which you seem to be discovering your own brand of philosophy as you go, I lose interest. Not that my interest should be the lynch pin of the discussion, I'm just saying.

As for Moonbeam's article... well, let's just say I am in fever from tasting your sweetmeat. The parables may be quaint, but they devolve into senselessness. The latter portion is a simple, reworded repetition of a mantra, "Reason hinders the soul," and demonstrates this with baseless quotations, couplets, and stories that all say the same thing. Using reason, bring me to a point where it makes for me to abandon it, and I will consider it. Our Persian friend Rumi failed.

Ah... Well, I don't much consider myself a Beatnik but suppose to a reader I may appear that way. I'm not really posting to impress or convince but, rather, to see if can offer some bit of my thinking to anyone who might be interested. That you're not is ok and fine by me. I suppose the absence of direct and aggressive argument toward another poster has never been my want. It never did make sense to me to try and batter someone because they felt as they did. I'd not refer to someone's position as stupid and without merit. I think everyone can discuss any issue without reverting to the common theme of first stating how idiotic they are then proceeding to proffer their view with their logic and their supportive links and etc. In this thread my theme has been the unique process of the mind. How Moonbeam and I and you can witness the same event and come away with a different conclusion. Each of us, in my view, uses what their mind's deductive process determines to be appropriate on all aspects of their life including their belief system.
At the end of the day we each will find out what we are prepared to find (maybe). That bit about a person saying the End of the World occurs when they die suggests a view that when that occurs a new 'World' begins - to me, that is.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: spittledip

Having the ability to control everything and choosing to control everything are 2 different concepts altogether.
Indeed, but when you have the power to materialize any reality you will, it is nonsensical to claim that a reality would materialize contrary to that will. If you truely willed something different, then it would be. That's what omnipotence means.

God clearly states He hates evil and punishes it. Does He then create evil b/c He is all powerful?
Precisely.

But if His will is to end sin, then why would He allow it if He maintains complete control?
There is no coherent answer to that question, because it is nonsensical, as I have stated, repeatedly.

Maybe God is a bit more complex, and is not just a power-machine. Like I said before, God is not 1 dimensional, although it makes Him a lot easier to tear apart if one makes him 1 dimensional.
That's great, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

Again, you are simplifying God too much. He is more than just "all-powerful." Just b/c you have the power to do something does not mean that you do it. Even people operate at this level. There are often things we would like to do that are within our power, but we do not do them b/c we are more than just bags of blood and guts and bones chasing after every stimulus. He could have created a planet of "yes-men," but apparently he wanted people who had the capacity to make their own minds up about him, just as you and I are demonstrating here. Maybe if you or I were all-powerful we would create a world whose inhabitants were all yes-men, but God is not you or I. He has other characteristics that guide His decisions. He has His own Free-will and his own reasons for doing what He does.

What this has to do with the price of tea is that when you create a strawman God, it makes it much easier to poke holes in the beliefs of other people. Isn't that the purpose of the strawman? Also, you seem to have such a limited concept of what God is- you seem to think God is just an "it" with power. To understand concepts about God, or even to have a meaningful conversation about God, you have to let go of the notion that He is a simpleton powerhouse or whatever limiting ideas you have.

This also brings up what Moon and other moon said to me. They sthink that religious belief is something you compartmentalize- it is only experiential and that there is no reasoning behind it. After thinking about it, I decided that was wrong. I do not put my rational self in a jar when I think about religious things, nor do I put away emotions when I think about intellectual things. I do not believe in living a fractured existence. God is not fractured either- He is perfectly whole and all that He is operates together, just like a psychologically healthy person should. As soon as you determine what God should or shouldn't do based upon one characteristic you are compartmentalizing Him.

(edit: in reference to God doing other than His will when He has power to do otherwise)You can even take examples from the Bible when people intervened and asked God to do or not do something, and He heard them and did as they asked. Of course, there are groups of religious people who believe that God is a wish-granter by limiting their view of Him according to passages such as these. etc etc God obviously does not always do as we ask.

BTW, My question about allowing sin was rhetorical. I was linking that thought with the sentence below it about God's complexity.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly? People cannot admit they are gullible?
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,596
730
126
Originally posted by: spittledip

What this has to do with the price of tea is that when you create a strawman God, it makes it much easier to poke holes in the beliefs of other people. Isn't that the purpose of the strawman? Also, you seem to have such a limited concept of what God is- you seem to think God is just an "it" with power. To understand concepts about God, or even to have a meaningful conversation about God, you have to let go of the notion that He is a simpleton powerhouse or whatever limiting ideas you have.

I have to jump into this and say that all arguments about god are strawman because there is no physical way of defining god and anyone who believes can only have their own concept of god and what god is. There is no true logic in faith as there really is no true faith in logic.

Edit: Although there were some proofs in my college math that may have been completed by faith.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Moonbeam's article indicates
"Logical and precise, left-brain thinking gave us the Information Age. Now comes the Conceptual Age - ruled by artistry, empathy, and emotion."

It would seem to me that Personality Types (Myers-Briggs) seeks to define the extent to which the mind's activity manifests itself. A psychologist seems to (an INFP) find comfort in situations that would make a Marine Sergeant cringe (an ESTJ). I think the condition is not one that can be self controlled but, rather, the mind process in a preprogrammed activity controls - the Brain's chemical/electrical situation. It is in the DNA but also affected by conditions aside from what the DNA designs. I think we evolve from generation to generation and by mistakes of the enzymes putting together the DNA which gets passed on as well. So we are able by virtue of our mind and brain function to 'see' in a more artistic/empathetic/emotional way only to the extent we can. Stuff makes sense to us only if we can find comfort in it and reject it if we don't.
An age of Information or Conceptualization will come about only as the numbers of individuals evolve in one direction or another.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly? People cannot admit they are gullible?

Nope.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: spittledip

Again, you are simplifying God too much.
On what basis can you make that claim? In reality, I'm not talking about God, per se, but about omnipotence. Please pay closer attention.

He is more than just "all-powerful." Just b/c you have the power to do something does not mean that you do it.
I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it is inconsistent to claim that things happen in opposition to the will of a being whose will cannot be opposed.

Even people operate at this level. There are often things we would like to do that are within our power, but we do not do them b/c we are more than just bags of blood and guts and bones chasing after every stimulus. He could have created a planet of "yes-men," but apparently he wanted people who had the capacity to make their own minds up about him, just as you and I are demonstrating here. Maybe if you or I were all-powerful we would create a world whose inhabitants were all yes-men, but God is not you or I. He has other characteristics that guide His decisions. He has His own Free-will and his own reasons for doing what He does.
I'm not talking about free will. This has absolutely nothing to do with fre will. Please pay attention so that you do not introduce any further irrelevant diversions.

What this has to do with the price of tea is that when you create a strawman God, it makes it much easier to poke holes in the beliefs of other people.
As I said above, I'm not necessarily talking about your God. If you don't believe that your God is omnipotent, then my argument doesn't apply to your God.


Isn't that the purpose of the strawman? Also, you seem to have such a limited concept of what God is- you seem to think God is just an "it" with power. To understand concepts about God, or even to have a meaningful conversation about God, you have to let go of the notion that He is a simpleton powerhouse or whatever limiting ideas you have.
Any other attributes are totally irrlevant.

This also brings up what Moon and other moon said to me. They sthink that religious belief is something you compartmentalize- it is only experiential and that there is no reasoning behind it. After thinking about it, I decided that was wrong. I do not put my rational self in a jar when I think about religious things, nor do I put away emotions when I think about intellectual things. I do not believe in living a fractured existence. God is not fractured either- He is perfectly whole and all that He is operates together, just like a psychologically healthy person should. As soon as you determine what God should or shouldn't do based upon one characteristic you are compartmentalizing Him.
Blah blah blah.... I hope it makes you feel good to type things like this out, because it does absolutely nothing for me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Please pay attention.

(edit: in reference to God doing other than His will when He has power to do otherwise)You can even take examples from the Bible when people intervened and asked God to do or not do something, and He heard them and did as they asked.
That the Bible describes an inconsistent god-concept does not invalidate my argument. If the Bible said there were square circles, that wouldn't mean that square circles are a coherent idea.




 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

This is my #1 beef with religion. Spirituality is one thing; organizing and using superstitious, unsubstantiated beliefs to influence society and, more specifically, me is something else altogether. I'd be all for a "live-and-let-live" policy if the faithful would just keep it to themselves, but the nature of the religious system does not seem to allow that.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,293
6,352
126
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly? People cannot admit they are gullible?

I don't think so. I would say:

Atheist; Holds his world view to be true because he thinks it's true.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true because he feels it to be true.

A rational mind may claim elegance but a feeling person calls it joy.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Atheist; Holds his world view to be true unless there is credible evidence of a God.

Theist; Holds his world view to be true without credible evidence of a God.

Have I got the arguement spelled out correctly?

no, as a matter of fact, you do not have it spelled correctly

As a more substantive commentary, it makes sense that this thread mostly turned from "Atheism vs Christianity" into "Athiesm vs. Theism" as there can be no rational defense of the tenets or belief system of Christianity or any other religion.

Further, since athiests do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence, they live their lives as if he doesn't exist. The problem is that theists, who believe in a god for which there is no evidence, do not simply live life as if god existed. If they did so, I imagine there wouldn't be a whole lot of conflict between the two groups. But theists generally are not satisfied simply believing in god's existence and going about their business; instead they tend to gravitate towards organized religion, and compound their belief in a deity whose existence is questionable with belief in a whole shitload of crazy for which not only is there no evidence, but which contradicts modern science and common sense.

Actually, people gather together b/c they are supposed to according to the scriptures. I don't know how it is for all religions, but Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians are supposed to gather together.

There is conflict between the 2 groups usually b/c of moral and political reasons. Also, there is a conflict due to both groups not wanting the others to disseminate false information , i.e. the other group's beliefs.

That you believe that there is no rational defense for Christianity or other religions is your own opinion, and far from factual.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |