The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My condolences, forgot to say :(

Anyway: Beer, women, sunlight and small children is of course part of both our worlds. Would you not accept that you wouldn't be able to post here (you'd be locked away a long time ago), so I'll give you no kudos points for it.

However, for me the interesting question is not that this physical stuff exists, for me the interesting thing is WHY it exists, and how it came to be.

I see a galaxy with beautiful mathematics, supernovas, stardust turning into sentient beings and a whole lot of things our best brains and deepest efforts have yet to understand...

You see a world where there is a set God who makes stuff happen for unknown reasons.


"Your" world only includes "more stuff" if you also agree that someone believing in the tooth fairy has a richer world than someone who doesn't.

But please do not claim that your world includes all the stuff my world does.

That's alright - you're easily forgiven for the lapse.

You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".

You think I don't see galaxey star dust....

I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Paln, where for you it just "is".

So, in that case I would have more "why" too.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's alright - you're easily forgiven for the lapse.

You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".

You think I don't see galaxey star dust....

I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Paln, where for you it just "is".

So, in that case I would have more "why" too.

I do not agree. There is a "why" in science, but people who believe in science think you need to sort out the "how" to understand the "why".

Neither do I agree that science at large, or me, claim that anything just "is".


I claim that the difference between you and me is not in the questions asked, but in the tools used to answer the questions.


I put my belief in humanity at large's best efforts and sharpest brains.

You put your belief in a very criticized collection of books written by a desert living people some ~2000 years ago.


Things has evolved since you know... You do agree with evolution? ;)

So, well, I totally do not see how your world view is in any way bigger or richer, unless, as I said before, you also think that someone believing in the tooth fairy live in a bigger and richer world than someone who don't.

[Beskar]

You say you're interested in the "why" - but there is no "why" in science, just the machine and the "how".
You think I don't see galaxey star dust....
I do, I appreciate all those processes - but the difference between you and me is that I see the purpose of that order as a fulfillment of a Divine Plan, where for you it just "is".
So, in that case I would have more "why" too.

I am having to disagree with you here, PVC. Perhaps it is just your wording or you have some how come across a really weird polar situation which I am failing to grasp from your writings, but I will go ahead and say why anyway.

You take say there is no "Why" in Science, and those for who use Science, there is just "Is" unlike for a devout believer such as yourself. This is completely contrary to every experience I have come across.

"Why is the sky blue and why does it turn red whilst turning to Dusk?" Tiaexz is sitting there in Sunday School class, the topical is the Creation, where the massively powerful being, Jehovah created the sun, stars and the world within seven days. The Sunday School teacher clearly unable to answer the question, whilst clearly out of his depth, he clearly grasps upon those hook-line and and sinkers based around his faith, "That is because God created it like so". Sunday School teacher sighs, "These kids, always asking these kind of questions..." he mutters under his breath, why does anyone even care about these things, to ponder the curiosity and question what is there. "Surely God must have a reason for those colours, instead of having.. Green or even simply White", the Sunday School teacher clearly has that look of not being impressed and questioned about these things, "They are like that because God willed it so, it is just -is-".

Tiaexz ends up arriving at Science class in School, they are studying about the heavenly bodies. "So.. why is the sky blue and why does it sometimes even appear red at dusk?", Tiaexz is a little low in mood, he was thoroughly told to "close the zipper" as typical during church, the Science teacher looks towards him and smiles, not the best looking of men, sort of goofy expression and thick rimmed glasses, but always friendly. "Let's take a look and find out how that is then!", the teacher brimmed with a big smile, infront of him were these devices in a box and he begins to bring them out, they look like they have been rescued from the 1970's, but they look function. They basically boiled down to a lampshade with a light bulb within it and a ball within a box. "Whilst we are unable to do this easily with the sun, we should be able to reproduce the effect so you understand", the teacher smiles warmly as he plugs in one of the boxes as the light bulb turns on. "So imagine this is the Sun" the teacher waves it around so you easily get the idea, and he points it towards this ball within the transparent box, "and imagine this is the earth.. as you see, the sun is shining down towards the earth as the sun orbits the sun, rotating like this" the teacher gives a slightly clumsy demonstration, but it is pretty clear what he is trying to do, attempting to make the experience as realistic as possible, "as we learnt, light is made up of different wave lengths, which when they reach the cones within the eye, produce a different colour in our perception, as the light hits upon our earth here, it travels and scatters within the atmosphere, as we see are seeing the blue as per our demonstrationa nd the sky outside, the shorter waves are scattered more when they come in contact with the particles, this scattering fills our senses making us perceive the colour blue, which is a short wave length spectrum. If they are scattered more evenly and more concentrated *light bulb is waved around* it appears 'white' as the scattering is more equal, this is why when you look towards the sun, it appears 'white'", a hand shoots up, "So why does it appear red during dusk or dawn?", the teacher smiles and moves the bulb at an angle towards the ball, from the otherside, the light from the bulb appears reddish. "As you see, when the 'sun' is an angle like this, the shorter wave lengths are scattered away by the particles leaving over the longer wave lengths to penerate".

In Church, questioning was a very bad thing, if you don't accept it as it is, then you might as well be condemned to the fiery pits of the nine levels of hell. In Science class, you was constantly rewarded with information through trying to discover and understand why something might be like something, and definitely not just blindly accepting everything fed to you. There was even a joke petition about the dangers of H2O being spread by the teacher who was trying to catch out students and forcing them to question everything and simply not accept what they are being told.

The whole reason I am not a theist is because I asked "Why" and never accepted anything as "is", this is reinforced constantly from my upbringing, I was often told I was a bad person because I questioned things in an attempt to understand. The irony in all that was, it wasn't that I was a bad person at all and in fact, I knew far more than they actually did, and they were intimated by it. I even knew that the wife of Jehovah is called Asherah. (Yes, "God" has a wife)

The thing is, religion is a social construct used to control the masses. As there were developments through history, things obviously change even within the big names like the catholic church as they are forced to adapt in an attempt to keep relevance. There are so many different versions and branches of Christianity alone, never mind when we involve different faiths and they point fingers at eachother, saying the other is "wrong", is when you really have to take a step back and think "Is it really so petty and foolish?". Then all these people brought up by these religions attempt to make mental jumps to latch on, identifying themselves as deist and other convoluted positions instead of simply accepting the reality the whole premise is flawed from the very beginning.

Instead of even questioning about the existence of "God(s)", I urge you to even define what "God(s)" is without making an unfalsifiable definition. (because a definition which is unfalsifiable is meaningless)


*Disclaimer

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My tirade was against organised religion that is packaged and fed to us on a daily basis, I wasn't actually questioning the existence of "God(s)" or attacking such a concept in my post. However, the final line is a more rhetorical question for you to consider, can you define what you believe it, is it unfalifiable (as in, if he existed or not, you wouldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference either way if it/them existed or not) or is it simply something that can be accurately defined but it is actually something ungodly such as a superfluous term for "energy" or a local belief that the pet cat is a "god".

[Sigurd]

I could pm you - but what if you said, "no Philip, this is boring"

I would be crushed.

Sorry Philip... Dailalama is a boring topic.

However the fallout is not. Take f.ex. this little gem:

The whole reason I am not a theist is because I asked "Why" and never accepted anything as "is", this is reinforced constantly from my upbringing, I was often told I was a bad person because I questioned things in an attempt to understand. The irony in all that was, it wasn't that I was a bad person at all and in fact, I knew far more than they actually did, and they were intimated by it. I even knew that the wife of Jehovah is called Asherah. (Yes, "God" has a wife)

The thing is, religion is a social construct used to control the masses. As there were developments through history, things obviously change even within the big names like the catholic church as they are forced to adapt in an attempt to keep relevance. There are so many different versions and branches of Christianity alone, never mind when we involve different faiths and they point fingers at eachother, saying the other is "wrong", is when you really have to take a step back and think "Is it really so petty and foolish?". Then all these people brought up by these religions attempt to make mental jumps to latch on, identifying themselves as deist and other convoluted positions instead of simply accepting the reality the whole premise is flawed from the very beginning.

Instead of even questioning about the existence of "God(s)", I urge you to even define what "God(s)" is without making an unfalsifiable definition. (because a definition which is unfalsifiable is meaningless)

I would like to comment on all of Beskar's points, but the bolded part made me remember something that I worked on a while back. It is in the same theory as all religion has a common source. It also ties into the whole Trinitarian debate and subordinationism.
The Canaanite and hence early Israelite god EL had a consort. She was the mother of Yahweh the son of EL. Similarly she was the consort of Sumerian Anu (chief god of their pantheon), which also ties into a secondary god similar to Yahweh.
Somehow the Israelites got rid of this father god and Yahweh absorbed all of EL's identity even his wife. I have once argued that theologically Christ and Yahweh is the same. The Son. Yahweh was before the monotheistic movement subordinate to the chief god EL, who was his father. I read with great interest the New Testament Jesus and esp. the gospel of John with this in mind. Jesus the God of Israel crying to some external entity from the cross. "Why have you forsaken me?". And the hint to Mary Magdalene about a father figure being greater than him. "Your God and mine". Knowing that Asherah was equated to a tree, and depicted and hinted to as such in the old testament, I came over a piece that just made this whole thing click. It was about the tree of life and the interpretation of a vision. It depicted a tree of life, pure and white with a life giving fruit. And then The mother of God, white and innocent with a babe in her arms. A virgin girl. Not the wife...a consort/concubine with the common product of a father and a mother, the fruit that would give life eternal - the saviour of man kind. Sooo.... the Christ being the only begotten son in the flesh, becomes a literal child of a Father and a mother. The mother being worshiped as the mother of a God, not unlike Mary. So... if the ancients knew about the Mary story - knew about the Son being the saviour, why would they not write about it? Incorporate it in their religion?
Maybe they just did that. Who copied who?