Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[jag]

Hi all,

"Don't throw out the baby with the bath water." Throw out the bath water -the churches with all ther wrong headed dogma. But keep the baby-God.

God is an easy theory to have faith in. It feels good and seems logical IMHO.

I heard of a theory that said, you can argue that "we" do not exist." "I exist" is a theory, maybe, easier to believe in than God exists. But in the end they're both the same.

It's all comin' down in harmony.

jag

[arthur]

Hi Arthur .... I think I understand your posts.

I'm not knocking, but asking ?

If, as I believe, Evolution supplies an account of the life on earth, and further, the complete story of the universe, it does it without mentioning a God, nor leaving any reason for imaging one.

I think your saying, think only, that this leads to a breakdown in morals, ethics.

In other words, the bird in the hand, tho starting to shows signs of molt, is still worth more than two in the bush.

If something is false, despite the fact that a majority may rely on it for social cohesion, does not mean that we should not pursue the truth, for fear of what that truth may imply, by our local standards.

Am I reading you correct ?

One day soon, we will have to 'knock' god, or at least present alternate theories that show the redundancy of a system that we owe a great deal to, but has now been superseded. The earth is starting to hurt, and ecological balance is the only medicine. This can only be fully understood by studying the underpinnings without preconceived bias.

greg

Hello Greg.

I am not sure if this forum (or any other forum) is really suitable for presenting, albeit a very small part of, such a profound and emotionally subversive potentially demoralising concept. This idea of 'Christian and religious' influence being responsible for the present state of humanity as a whole and for the state of humans as individuals and responsible for the degraded condition of the world caused by human activity is really all pretty obvious and in principle fairly simple but in detail extremely complex and if fully understood will bring into question the veracity of much of what is assumed or what is just accepted by vested interests or by the naïve, to be 'science'. And. Of course, as a side note Greg, for this idea, or any idea, to be true, or for it to be fact, every individual aspect of it as well as it as a whole will be the result of absolutely everything involved responding to and following the rules that constitute The Universal Law. I am not sure if there really is an appetite for, or if the members of this forum have the time or the inclination to take on board unfamiliar concepts, concepts which if they did manage take on board would force them to question all of the values, real or imagined that cause them to be what they are.

OK Greg. You and almost any one who has a basic education and who lives in a "sophisticated society" already has all of the "knowledge" needed to understand the premise, that is of course if it can be viewed with objectivity.

An extract: Many years ago I was asked to give a talk, it included some important but unfamiliar and unorthodox concepts which I knew could or would not be accepted by my intellectually over "educated" audience. With an element of trepidation I started by asking the 80 or so audience, while slowly removing my wrist watch, to spend 3 minutes writing down things that they knew, not assumptions, not things which they only thought they knew, not hearsay but things that they emphatically knew, "starting now". After a couple of minutes I said "stop" then asked who had written less than two things, nearly every one indicated so. "The reason for this experiment", I said, "was to show, and I guess the average age here to be about 30 years, was to show that for 30 years your brains have been continually receiving information/potential knowledge via your senses and yet when asked what you know you come up with virtually nothing after 3 minutes".
The point in telling that story is really only to ask you who are reading this, how much, or, what do you actually know? Even if it is only out of interest why not take up pen and paper and try it? You might be surprised.

And another:………Father said, amongst many other things, "When one starts upon a new project or study always start from the basis of how little one knows rather than how much one thinks one knows for if you do it will pay dividends in understanding"


So Greg and anyone else with my earlier post's in mind all that one has to do is to take the proposition that "what is called, 'Christian' influence on Mankind is responsible for the present state of humanity (including you who are reading this) and responsible for the condition of the world caused by human activity." and consider the evolution (i.e. the rational and reasons for the changes) of all of the individual things and aspects which make our sophisticated society possible. I have already mentioned 'From The ten commandments to the laws which gives us our individual freedom and all of that stuff like democracy with its worldwide influence and implications. Then look at 'people' and consider why global infant and children mortality (per-capita) is the lowest that it has ever been and relate it to the effects of global overpopulation; look at the evolution of health and hygiene, food availability and distribution, care for the poor and infirm, etc, etc. and relate that to overpopulation; and then, relate over populations contribution to global degradation.
Look at the role and the evolution of institutionalised Christian academic and vocational education; look at the evolution and the number of socially pivotal secular institutions, centres, organisations which includes hospitals, etc which have in their title the word Saint or Christian and consider the motives for their inception and consider their local and world wide influences etc, etc. Consider the vast amount of non renewable global resources which have been used to fulfil the wont of Christians desire to help and improve the lot of their fellow man, etc, etc.
Consider the ecclesiastical sources of all of "western" music and its influences on the whole world, etc.
Consider the percentage of China's, direct and indirect, economic and industrial development which can be directly attributed to the production of Christmas and Easter presents and paraphernalia; and then consider its contribution to the "economic" down turn of the "west", etc, etc, etc, as I have said elsewhere; "It should be recognised that the Evolution of Mankind, both physical and psychological, and Religion the are so intertwined as to be inseparable"
Anyway Greg I'm sure that you get the picture. So. Once the "religious" impact on every thing from Global Economics to the personal and emotional expectations of being able to live in peace and freedom are recognised and understood it will axiomatically be understood that, not only the personal dangers but, the dangers to society as a whole of attempting intentionally or unintentionally to subvert or undermine and destroy that which created and maintains it. Cutting off the hand that feeds one!

What do you think?
arthur..

[SB_UK]

Matthew 24:42-44
" ... because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

He'd be least expected when most doubted his existence, wouldn't he?

- perhaps (with this in mind)
- the most ardent 'believers' 'd best serve their religion by stoking disbelief rather than the other.

Pretty sure that people like Richard Dawkins -
through stirring up disbelief in God -
are inadvertently (though not really ) set to return religion (away from power brokers)
back to ~people~.

Incidentally -
Hinduism and Christianity appear to be as one on this idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
'... that when the 'baddies' who pose as kings begin devouring men who appear righteous
and
feed[ing] on human beings, Kalki [will appear] ... ... '

Richard 'Jaws'King ??? (wind)

~*~

There's plenty of good stuff in the religious texts.

~*~

Cutting off the hand that feeds one!

~knowing~
that a handful'll grow back to feed one some plenty more.

[Graybeard]

Hi Arthur. When I read your first post I found it to be concise, factual and error free. (Not many people would know that the Holy Roman Empire was a euro/germanic political operation .... at least, not many in my part of the world.)

I didn't have to look up 'snippets-on-the-net' in order to understand it or confirm it, so I hope that doesn't make me very very old ... lol

But what is it you actually want to discuss, or was your first post just a statement ?

I take your point about 'knocking' God as the hand that has fed us so far, and that society is still dependent on this to a significant extent. I admit, mea culpa, from time to time, that I have been guilty of 'knocking god' and that this is in no way beneficial overall.

Prior to organised religion there were creation myths, so in a way, religion owes a lot to them. We all owe each other, and no system is without sin .... It was Prussia's ruthless and successful domination of all states within the Holy Roman Empire that founded Germany .... this new power changed the european/russian paradigm .. which led to the war .. which led to the next war ..

cool bananas ... greg

[arthur]

Hi Arthur. When I read your first post I found it to be concise, factual and error free. (Not many people would know that the Holy Roman Empire was a euro/germanic political operation .... at least, not many in my part of the world.)

I didn't have to look up 'snippets-on-the-net' in order to understand it or confirm it, so I hope that doesn't make me very very old ... lol

But what is it you actually want to discuss, or was your first post just a statement ?

I take your point about 'knocking' God as the hand that has fed us so far, and that society is still dependent on this to a significant extent. I admit, mea culpa, from time to time, that I have been guilty of 'knocking god' and that this is in no way beneficial overall.

Prior to organised religion there were creation myths, so in a way, religion owes a lot to them. We all owe each other, and no system is without sin .... It was Prussia's ruthless and successful domination of all states within the Holy Roman Empire that founded Germany .... this new power changed the european/russian paradigm .. which led to the war .. which led to the next war ..

cool bananas ... greg

Hello Greg
With a continual reference to my earlier posts. Firstly; my off the cuff remark to a particular individual was not intended for anyone who displays their ability to actually think or to anyone who asks relevant questions or to anyone who displays an interest, although in this day and age of snaffling and displaying dubious www snippets as a prime means of , "proving" "confirming" or illustrating a vast personal understanding about absolutely everything does seem to be the practice of mainly the intellectually insecure young and not of the old, the very old or like me, the very very old, and not the practice of those who have that quality of personal and intellectual integrity.

"But what is it you actually want to discuss, or was your first post just a statement" ?

The reasons for my initial post were multifarious but in principle it was one of many attempts to find anyone who had an understanding of or anyone who had a desire to understand the proposition and to see if there was anyone who could shed light on why it is the self important people who seem so intent on destroying it, even though they are, like us all, completely dependent upon it.
"…and that society is still dependent on this to a significant extent." No Greg, completely dependent.

Now Greg, if that 'anyone' had emerged or if any objective free thinkers, other than your self, had emerged it might have lead on to discussion for the purpose of gaining a greater understanding of the ramifications of its demise to the continued Evolution of humanity as a whole and to the continued Evolution of individuals, if we are lucky, of you and I. and, to the present collapsing of the structures that make our own Sophisticated societies possible. But alas there is little discussion and so, little understanding.

I am not sure Greg, if you, or if any one else, recognises that the existence or not of 'God' or the belief or the lack of belief in a God has absolutely no relevance to the proposition.

As I have already said:"I am not sure if there really is an appetite for, or if the members of this forum
have the time or the inclination to take on board unfamiliar concepts"

regards…arthur..

[Graybeard]

.. or like me, the very very old

How old, if its not impolite .... I'm 55 this year, another certain person is older than me.

Greg :"But what is it you actually want to discuss, or was your first post just a statement" ?

The reasons for my initial post were multifarious but in principle it was one of many attempts to find anyone who had an understanding of or anyone who had a desire to understand the proposition and to see if there was anyone who could shed light on why it is the self important people who seem so intent on destroying it, even though they are, like us all, completely dependent upon it.

Greg : "…and that society is still dependent on this to a significant extent."

No Greg, completely dependent.

Perhaps it is this last point we could discuss ?

But I would be in the position of a Devil's advocate. I don't believe we are completely dependant upon the old guard. I see it as superseded ... the difficulty is in the changing of the guard.

I also believe like the water rat, that, "there is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much fun as messing about in boats." This is a rash boast, lol ... but I believe that there is, 'nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be explained by an evolutionary description.' And nothing half so much fun.

So if you can put up with my attitude ......... ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Hi Greg;

I smell another challenge:

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) KEY

NOUN:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. 1. <LI type=a>The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
3. Biology
   1. <LI type=a>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

So where does evolution come from?
Nature follows the simple. Evolution is towards the complex, which is anti-nature and anti-entropy. Don't get me wrong I believe there is an evolutionary process, but it is counterintuititve, unless you accept it's part of an Intelligent Design. I believe the process of evolution is too great of an idea to have come randomly from nature, which loves the simple.

Best,

Pat

P.S. I don't believe it's evolution OR intelligent design; IT'S BOTH.

[labelwench]

Hello arthur,

As a non Christian I would like to point out the legacy from which you all benefit as the result of Un Christian Roman Catholicism .

Right from the start, you place yourself as non Christian. The question of god(s), excepting this one is unaddressed.

You present the political structure of order that underlies the religious belief in god as the means by which we enjoy most benefits today, if I take your meaning correctly.

Religion is the main vehicle for the control of populations. In my observation, children are born without religious belief. Indoctrination comes from family, community and society.

To choose otherwise, often times places the individual at disadvantage within their social structure.

The present move toward a new world order is interesting. Another player in the game of which political structure will prove most effective in controlling an increasingly restless population in the face of the growing challenges of resource shortage.

What is your purpose for this thread? Where leads your thoughts?

Name origins are but a hobby of mine, so I leave you with the following.

ARTHUR
Gender: Masculine

Usage: English, French, German, Welsh Mythology

Pronounced: AHR-thər (English), ar-TUYR (French) [key]

The meaning of this name is unknown. It could be derived from British art "bear" combined with viros "man", or it could be related to Irish art "stone". Alternatively it could be related to an obscure Roman family name Artorius. Arthur is the name of the central character in Arthurian legend, a 6th-century king of the Britons who presided over the knights of the Round Table. He may or may not have been a real person.
The name came into general use in England in the Middle Ages due to the prevalence of Arthurian romances, and it enjoyed a surge of popularity in the 19th century. Famous bearers include German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), mystery author and Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), and science-fiction author Arthur C. Clarke (1917-).

Regards,

Labelwench

[Graybeard]

I smell another challenge:

No challenge here Pat. Arthur has already stated his viewpoint on quoting 'snippets' from the net. This thread is not about evolution.

Rather, how do we remove the old guard we're so dependent on, and replace it with a new ?

Aside, evolution increases entropy by breaking symmetry. couldn't resist, sorry .. lol

cool bananas ... greg

[arthur]

Hello arthur,



Right from the start, you place yourself as non Christian. The question of god(s), excepting this one is unaddressed.

You present the political structure of order that underlies the religious belief in god as the means by which we enjoy most benefits today, if I take your meaning correctly.

Religion is the main vehicle for the control of populations. In my observation, children are born without religious belief. Indoctrination comes from family, community and society.

To choose otherwise, often times places the individual at disadvantage within their social structure.

The present move toward a new world order is interesting. Another player in the game of which political structure will prove most effective in controlling an increasingly restless population in the face of the growing challenges of resource shortage.

What is your purpose for this thread? Where leads your thoughts?

Name origins are but a hobby of mine, so I leave you with the following.



Regards,

Labelwench

Hello Labelwench


"The question of god(s), excepting this one is unaddressed."

I don't understand what the above means.
The reason for pointing out that I am a non Christian was to circumvent accusations of such as evangelism or of proselytising.

You present the political structure of order that underlies the religious belief in god as the means by which we enjoy most benefits today, if I take your meaning correctly.

The above, what is, I think intended as a paraphrased statement of what I propose is far too inaccurate. If one were to read my other posts objectively the meaning of the premise that I propose should be clear, non contentious and when understood axiomatic. Although I think that I kind of maybe understand your other statements, because I either cannot see their relevance or because of the wording I can't really constructively comment.

"What is your purpose for this thread?"

The intended purpose of this thread I have already told Greg."Where leads your thoughts?"
Now; as to my thoughts. In the context of this thread my main consideration is in wondering if there really is any value in offering unknown emotional people a key to understanding a very small aspect of this highly explosive and dangerous concept which is The Universal Law.
This really is very 'heavy' stuff and my thoughts go along the lines of, will it be too heavy for this or any other forum. Will there be any merit whatsoever in encouraging people to drop all of those spontaneous fluctuating emotionally inspired bigotries and biases and prejudices which control what they interpret as their likes and dislikes and which make them who they are, for the sole purpose of them understanding, what is in effect, the meaning of their existence.
Of course there are other trains of thought not least of which is, can I be bothered to expend the time and effort countering misinterpretations of what I say due to a lack of objectivity, pseudo science, stupidity, immaturity and just lack of interest.
My regards…arthur

The meaning of Arfer From a great-granddaughter:
"Nok Nok" "hoo's there" "Arfer" "Arfer hoo" "Afer God sake stop talking and open the door"