The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

[Skullheadhq]

I think this is an issue of idiocy on my Part. And to think I just wrote a term paper for my
Theology class on this sort of thing. Regardless you understand my point, I'm a catholic everyone gets into heaven through inclusivism etc. and that it legitimately seems it would be hard to have exclusivism principles in day to say life.

Wrap up- meant Exclusivism in the earlier post and then meant that I Ollie a church which supports inclusivism

Extra ecclesiam...

[Strike For The South]

Thank Mother Church I have religion that believes in incusivism so I don't have to walk around looking at people and thinking in my mind they go to hell.

This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.

It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.

It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.

No it isn't - it's just impossible for you. Hence your loss of faith.

It is a great act of hubris to believe that your generation or its experiences are somehow different.

Litterally millions upon millions of words have been expended on the agony Christians feel in trying to determine who will and who won't go to hell, and how to deal with being incapable to tell while they are alive.

[Centurion1]

Extra ecclesiam...

I have had multiple arguments on these boards to prove that the Catholic Church does not believe in exclusivism, one of which Phillips may remember. First of all inclusivism and the quote you use as your argument "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" are not incompatible. Inclusivism says that all salvation comes from Jesus Christ and that the Catholic Church follows the true path but that all faiths in conjunction with a holy life can lead to everlasting paradise.

But really, I do not need to dispute or explain since Church Doctrine can change.

This always cracks me up. The mental hoops people go through in order to reconcile their religion with the wider world.

It was difficult in the past, now it's nigh impossible.

This always cracks me up. The mentally weak proclaiming their inability to hold faith as some sort of intellectual superiority. The Church in no way forces me to question my beliefs at any point and only people who have a very weak understanding of the Catholic church would be able to claim otherwise. Where exactly in my faith am I forced to choose between it and science?

[Papewaio]

You shouldn't listen to them.

Why not they are all Christians and it is their beliefs to define

Well, that settles it

FYI Australia straddles between Western and Eastern ideas. Being a Westminister country with mainly Asian trading partners. We have large communities of Buddhists within Australia.

I don't see how being in our geographical position we could not know anything about Asian religions.

Considering the suburb I live in has about 25% Hindis and a large temple. Likewise I was at Nan Tien Temple last weekend I have some personal exposure to religions other then my parents.

That is an advantage here that I did not get in NZ.

[Strike For The South]

No it isn't - it's just impossible for you. Hence your loss of faith.

It is a great act of hubris to believe that your generation or its experiences are somehow different.

Litterally millions upon millions of words have been expended on the agony Christians feel in trying to determine who will and who won't go to hell, and how to deal with being incapable to tell while they are alive.

Well yes, all the more reason to assume there is no higher power. I do not claim to be in an advanced mental state nor do I hold peoples faith against them but to continue to believe in the Juedo-Christian concept of God seems far reaching to me.

This always cracks me up. The mentally weak proclaiming their inability to hold faith as some sort of intellectual superiority. The Church in no way forces me to question my beliefs at any point and only people who have a very weak understanding of the Catholic church would be able to claim otherwise. Where exactly in my faith am I forced to choose between it and science?

Not I hold intellectual superioirty of you becuase you still bow to a king in Rome.

If you were a protestant, I would simply disagree with your concept of God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well yes, all the more reason to assume there is no higher power. I do not claim to be in an advanced mental state nor do I hold peoples faith against them but to continue to believe in the Juedo-Christian concept of God seems far reaching to me.

Thursday morning, my Grandfather died, I was not in a good frame of mind.

A convoluted sequence of events placed me in front of a particular friend of mine and when she asked, "are you alright" I opened up to her in a way that I would not open up to most people and she and some other of my friends sat with me for an hour and a half while I gabbled incoherently. The chain of events, happenstance, miscomunication and every thing else which began nearly a weak earlier that got me to that moment is mindboggling. The point is, it got me there.

Stuff like that happens - which is why I don't believe in coincidence.

You say you find the "Juedo-Christian" concept of God "far reaching", by which I assume you mean unlikely, but that utterence indicates that you have never interogated what that concept is.

People say "Juedo-Christian", but that's an oxymoronic construction that comes out of "New" theology designed to be polite to Jews, who think Christians are fools at best. Nobody ever talks about the "Juedo-Islamic" or "Christo-Islamic" God because despite the similarities the concept is acknowledged as absurd. In fact, what people consider likely or unlikely is entirely dependent on experience. You at some point suffered a losss of faith; partly because the strctures of your native religion conflicts with your own thought processes and partly because you have not accessed the mystical experience that religion promises.

Despite that - other people do not find the belief system as poor a fit and have accessed the mystical side of the religion.

I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?

[Strike For The South]

Thursday morning, my Grandfather died, I was not in a good frame of mind.

My condolences

A convoluted sequence of events placed me in front of a particular friend of mine and when she asked, "are you alright" I opened up to her in a way that I would not open up to most people and she and some other of my friends sat with me for an hour and a half while I gabbled incoherently. The chain of events, happenstance, miscomunication and every thing else which began nearly a weak earlier that got me to that moment is mindboggling. The point is, it got me there.

Stuff like that happens - which is why I don't believe in coincidence.

So by eschewing coincidence you can only logically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power? Not only is there a higher power, but he is the one you believe in.

You say you find the "Juedo-Christian" concept of God "far reaching", by which I assume you mean unlikely, but that utterence indicates that you have never interogated what that concept is.

Would Abrhamic suffice? I could name all the religons of all the world, none of which I find a kinder word for but far reaching, but that would take up the page.

People say "Juedo-Christian", but that's an oxymoronic construction that comes out of "New" theology designed to be polite to Jews, who think Christians are fools at best. Nobody ever talks about the "Juedo-Islamic" or "Christo-Islamic" God because despite the similarities the concept is acknowledged as absurd. In fact, what people consider likely or unlikely is entirely dependent on experience. You at some point suffered a losss of faith; partly because the strctures of your native religion conflicts with your own thought processes and partly because you have not accessed the mystical experience that religion promises.

You say you don't subscribe to coicidence yet the bolded sentence is percisely why I hold the oppisite view. If you were born anywhere else, your view only religion would be entirely different. Unless you subscribe to predestinantion I don't understand how you could find that view logically consistent. Your think your religon is right only becuase it is yours, not becuase it is right.

So I have been led astray by my church elders and I have not prayed hard enough? Losing my faith was a very hard thing to do, more reflection only stiffens my resolve in the other direction.

Despite that - other people do not find the belief system as poor a fit and have accessed the mystical side of the religion.

So it all comes down to a matter of feeling then?

I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?

I would say you have a decidely smaller view

[Kadagar_AV]

I was criticised once for suggesting that my conception of the world was "larger" that that of my irreligious opponents, but if my world includes your world and another world in a cohesive whole, how else am I to describe that to you?

First of all I very much question the "cohesiveness" you describe.

Secondly, your world does not include my world. In my world science, the universe and nature trumps what the very vast majority of the worlds society consider to be imaginary beings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My condolences

Thank you, he was 99 and 11 months (almost to the day), so it was not a very great surprise,

So by eschewing coincidence you can only logically come to the conclusion that there is a higher power? Not only is there a higher power, but he is the one you believe in.

Well, yes, to be honest. I consider the Christian conception of God to be most likely, because he is the most forgiving - he's welcome to correct me at any time, and I shall be extremely sorry if it turns out that, in fact, I should have been worshipping Odin, but there you go.

Would Abrhamic suffice? I could name all the religons of all the world, none of which I find a kinder word for but far reaching, but that would take up the page.

If you can't get behind God, just say so, don't hide behind a pingeon hole, it implies you might be able to believe in, say, Mithras or Sol Invictus - but from what you have said that is no easier for you than believing in YHWH.

If it's just the theistic bit, you could try being a Deist.

You say you don't subscribe to coicidence yet the bolded sentence is percisely why I hold the oppisite view. If you were born anywhere else, your view only religion would be entirely different. Unless you subscribe to predestinantion I don't understand how you could find that view logically consistent. Your think your religon is right only becuase it is yours, not becuase it is right.

Someone said something similar to Archbishop Temple, his response?

"You only believe that because of your upbringing."

I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.

So I have been led astray by my church elders and I have not prayed hard enough? Losing my faith was a very hard thing to do, more reflection only stiffens my resolve in the other direction.

If you think preyer improves faith then I'd say someone has let you down.

So it all comes down to a matter of feeling then?

Yes, and absolutely not.

What is a feeling? Have you ever tried to describe one to someone else without comparing it to another sensatio0n?

It's like describing colours to a blind man, it doesn't mean anything, you're just describing how the colours make you feel, not what they look like - because the blind man can't see them.

I would say you have a decidely smaller view

You have no reason to say that other than being afraid of what I'm saying.

I may be mad, but my breadth of experience is broader than your because I am talking about something you obviously can't comprehend, because it is so far beyond your pale.

First of all I very much question the "cohesiveness" you describe.

Secondly, your world does not include my world. In my world science, the universe and nature trumps what the very vast majority of the worlds society consider to be imaginary beings.

Let me rephrase that slightly - my world includes all the "stuff yours does" - beer, women, sunlight, small children. I have all that "physical stuff" and then I have "other stuff".

Yes, my way of understanding might be "different" instead of "bigger", but my worldview definately includes more stuff than yours, because I'll believe in anything you do in the physical world, and all the non-physical stuff you don't believe in.

[Kadagar_AV]

Let me rephrase that slightly - my world includes all the "stuff yours does" - beer, women, sunlight, small children. I have all that "physical stuff" and then I have "other stuff".

Yes, my way of understanding might be "different" instead of "bigger", but my worldview definately includes more stuff than yours, because I'll believe in anything you do in the physical world, and all the non-physical stuff you don't believe in.

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.

[Kralizec]

My condolances as well.

I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.

Strike's point still stands, though. Despite being raised without it, you were open to christianity - but if you had been born in a village in Tibet you would have viewed christianity as a western idiosyncracy.

Which ties in with my dislike for the Calvinists' idea of predestination. Someone born in Europe, the America's or other predominately christian areas would likely be born a christian. Some people convert later, such as you.
Now, someone born in Lhasa or Shanghai or whatever probably would at least have heard of christianity. But it's not a religion that is well established in his or her society, so he/she would probably not seriously consider it. People born in non-christian countries are statistically less likely to be born as christian, and less likely to make the conversion.

All of this would make sense in a universe where God exists and salvastion is predestined. If you ask me, admittedly an atheist, fairness would demand that every individual has an equal chance of "making it".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My condolances as well.



Strike's point still stands, though. Despite being raised without it, you were open to christianity - but if you had been born in a village in Tibet you would have viewed christianity as a western idiosyncracy.

Which ties in with my dislike for the Calvinists' idea of predestination. Someone born in Europe, the America's or other predominately christian areas would likely be born a christian. Some people convert later, such as you.
Now, someone born in Lhasa or Shanghai or whatever probably would at least have heard of christianity. But it's not a religion that is well established in his or her society, so he/she would probably not seriously consider it. People born in non-christian countries are statistically less likely to be born as christian, and less likely to make the conversion.

All of this would make sense in a universe where God exists and salvastion is predestined. If you ask me, admittedly an atheist, fairness would demand that every individual has an equal chance of "making it".

Whether Strike has a point depends on whether we are talking about the fact that I have faith, or the form that it takes.

Yes, Calvinism sucks.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

Well, yes, to be honest. I consider the Christian conception of God to be most likely, because he is the most forgiving - he's welcome to correct me at any time, and I shall be extremely sorry if it turns out that, in fact, I should have been worshipping Odin, but there you go.

He is the most forgiving that you have bothered to hear of.

If you can't get behind God, just say so, don't hide behind a pingeon hole, it implies you might be able to believe in, say, Mithras or Sol Invictus - but from what you have said that is no easier for you than believing in YHWH.

Sorry for the semantics error.

If it's just the theistic bit, you could try being a Deist.

I do not wish to try my philosiphies as if they were clothes. I hope to find a semblance of truth and rationality somewhere

Someone said something similar to Archbishop Temple, his response?

"You only believe that because of your upbringing."

I said experience, not upbringing. I was brought up in a staunchly non-Christian atheist family, my ubringing was designed to innoculate me against Christianity - it failed utterly because I found the religion compelling and the arguments against it flimsy and incoherent.

And christianty was the dominant religion and has been for more than a century now, rather convienent, no?

If you think preyer improves faith then I'd say someone has let you down.

I can speak directly to God, why pray if not to soldify bonds? I do not expect all my prayers to be answered nor do I ever ask for wordly comforts but you imply prayer does not improve the faith. why?

Yes, and absolutely not.

What is a feeling? Have you ever tried to describe one to someone else without comparing it to another sensatio0n?

It's like describing colours to a blind man, it doesn't mean anything, you're just describing how the colours make you feel, not what they look like - because the blind man can't see them.

You have no reason to say that other than being afraid of what I'm saying.

I may be mad, but my breadth of experience is broader than your because I am talking about something you obviously can't comprehend, because it is so far beyond your pale.

Casting pearls before swine? You can do much better than this. I sat in the pew, heard the stories, and when I was baptized I truly belivied Jesus was in my heart. Now I do not and all evidence points that same direction. I wish I still had my faith but I do not

[Greyblades]

Hrm, a religion discussion. Fun, fun, fun.

I was raised catholic, I turned passive-agressive militant athiest at about 13, I stopped caring and turned agnostic at 16 or so.
Now, I'm not really concerned with it, at all, though I still identify myself as catholic and the ideals appeal.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hrm, a religion discussion. Fun, fun, fun.

I was raised catholic, I turned passive-agressive militant athiest at about 13, I stopped caring and turned agnostic at 16 or so.
Now, I'm not really concerned with it, at all, though I still identify myself as catholic and the ideals appeal.

You have to be more specific: Which ideals appeals?

The no sex before you have a metallic band around a finger thing?

The anti-condom campaigns in the worlds most AIDS-infected countries?

Crusading in the holy lands?



That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.

[Greyblades]

Well I can tell which side of the fence your on.

Which ideals appeals?

Love they neigbour, causing harm is a sin, dont steal. etc Basically I like the stuff that is belived and applied by the majority of the sane christians.

That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.

Well I found politics, hobbies, family and real life more important to me than religion. I've got enought to worry about right now than what some bearded guy in the sky thinks about me and I didnt find my tenure as an athiest particually made my life better or worse because of it so I dont feel like its all that necissary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have to be more specific: Which ideals appeals?

The no sex before you have a metallic band around a finger thing?

The anti-condom campaigns in the worlds most AIDS-infected countries?

Crusading in the holy lands?



That you are not concerned with it, is also something you might want to explain.

Hey, don't knock the Crusades!

They were the only time European soldiers really looked cool!

[Kadagar_AV]

Well I can tell which side of the fence your on.

Not the best guarded secret, now is it?

Love they neigbour, causing harm is a sin, dont steal. etc Basically I like the stuff that is belived and applied by the majority of the sane christians.

I can't believe you try to benchmark those traits as "Christian". Like the majority of sane Atheists, Agnostics or Buddhists believes in hating your neighbor, causing harm is jolly good, stealing is OK etc.

Well I found politics, hobbies, family and real life more important to me than religion. I've got enought to worry about right now than what some bearded guy in the sky thinks about me and I didnt find my tenure as an athiest particually made my life better or worse because of it so I dont feel like its all that necissary.

That would only be a fair point if religion did not play a part in politics and real life.

I was about to add that I would grant you the "hobbies" thingy until I realized that one of your hobbies obviously is posting right here.

[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".

[Greyblades]

I can't believe you try to benchmark those traits as "Christian". Like the majority of sane Atheists, Agnostics or Buddhists believes in hating your neighbor, causing harm is jolly good, stealing is OK etc.

Cute.
I never said that they were exclusive to christians.

That would only be a fair point if religion did not play a part in politics and real life.

So? Politics, real life, family, hobbies, yeah they include religion but I dont see them as important because of religion. It's something that pops up but rarely enough to concern me and I've had enough of religious discussion during the last decade without much consequence to become convinced its not really important to life in south east england.

[Montmorency]

@PVC: If you believe in the same physical "stuff" as an stheist would, and some nonphysical "stuff" besides, wouldn't your universes both be the same size?

I had thought that you were inclined towards Calvinism, though. It has such a nice argument behind it. "You think all those deeds performed by God were immoral? you, you're a useless human sinner! How can you pronounce on the perfect God's will, such as you are?" It's so conveniently irrefutable.

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".

You believe that; not everyone subscribes to the same philosophy of science.

Anyway, let's clarify these words:

Why - For what purpose or reason? With what intent?

How - By what means, cause, or process? In what manner?

Hurry up and not-marry PVC already.

[Beskar]

Anyway, let's clarify these words:
Why - For what purpose or reason? With what intent?
How - By what means, cause, or process? In what manner?

That is far too narrow of a definition and out of touch with common linguistic culture which when people inquire about "Why?" they are also asking "How?". "Why?" being the metaphorical question to every aspect of a subject.

As such: "Why is the cake orange?", this is a broad question is questions the motivations and questioning the food dying methods used to produce that effect.
"Why did you colour the cake orange?" this is a specific question asking about the reason behind that persons choice.

[Montmorency]

What you don't realize is that these usages are deeply offensive to me!



When they die, will you yet ask why?

[Beskar]

When they die, will you yet ask why?

Yes.

"Why are these terms dead?"

Will want to know about the purpose, reason and how they died!

[Montmorency]

You misunderstood?

Perhaps it's for the best...

[Centurion1]

In what way does science an religion come to clash. I find they can very easily coExist as they have ended up doing so in the Roman Catholic church. Sure obviously for a fundamentalist they are warrin principles but it's not hard or me to understand and acknowledge scientific principles all while satin hey maybe god set all of that in motion. The concept that god merely provided the spark is not hard to reconcile whatsoever with science.

You all presume to think that because you have seen for to renounce your faith and turn away from god it grants you
Magical understanding to comprehend a black hole while I have to choose between my faith or Science. At the end of the day neither you, I, or Stephen hawkin knows precisely How a black hole functions regardless of how we
Spend our Sunday's.

[a completely inoffensive name]

At the end of the day neither you, I, or Stephen hawkin knows precisely How a black hole functions regardless of how we
Spend our Sunday's.

This means nothing.