100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > notquite00
|
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/09/09 10:08 PM
|
|
Regardless of the facts, to believe that the destruction on 911 was caused by something else is too much for most Americans to swallow, at least right now. I think the truth, whatever that may be, has been irrecoverably swallowed by the maw of history. Perhaps in many years, there will be a public outcry for the truth, but by then the reports may be long gone. Documents had a way of going missing or being altered in the W. Bush administration...
And what about Pearl Harbor? When does an enemy attack on a largely militarized area give anyone the right to drop two nukes on two cities FULL of civilians? Sorry to move things off-topic with all this. Most historians (American and non-American) now believe that our reaction was not only unnecessary, but a crime against humanity. What's more, the "party-line" for why we dropped the nukes (to end the war) is said to be a cover. Rather, the nukes were an attempt to show Russia that our nukes worked and that we were willing to use them. Perhaps, there are other, more complicated reasons as well. Try finding that one in the high school history books though. I suppose it's the victors who write history, huh? I'm sure, though, that the following replies will consist of bashing the second paragraph of my post. T_T At least I'm prepared for it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Perfect love...........
|
|
Because Adam and Eve werent real* Thats my thought and I in no way expect anyone else to believe it. You may not believe in Adam and Eve but i hope you believe in a higher power............... Why do you hope this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Perfect love...........
Edited by
notquite00
on
Sun 02/08/09 07:09 PM
|
|
I was at church last sunday and my pastor talked about PERFECT LOVE(OR PURE LOVE) he says after Adam and Eve who had the PERFECT LOVE chose to eat the apple they ended up with IMPERFECT LOVE...............he also said they are the only humans who have experienced that PERFECTION and that we will never experience that PERFECT LOVE that they did because in other words we have been doomed by GOD..............so that is why we have so many problems in our relationships because we have IMPERFECT LOVE.............. so my question is why are we still searching for LOVE when its IMPERFECT LOVE that we have inherited from ADAM AND EVE........... One answer is because Imperfect Love is closer to Perfect Love thans No Love! In other words, love gives us a glimpse of the Divine. Now, what Divine means...is a discussion that needs its own thread.... Another answer comes in the form of a question: "Why study or pursue anything in life when you know that every job, every line of work, and every academic field is Imperfect? How can we still enjoy so many Imperfect things? Perhaps, this is because *we* are also Imperfect, and realizing this subconsciously, we accept (at least some of us do) Imperfection in life as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has to be logical because the excuse given for not accepting the scientific theory of evolution was that it was not logical and did not make any sense. So that means that if you believe in the creation story, that it must be logical in order to make sense. Also, it is logical that however God did it, there has to have been a means and a way he could have done it. There has to be some sort of theory involved in how it was accomplished. Was it a computer program? Was it nano-technology? Are we just a dream or part of God's imagination? Is god a supreme being or an alien? What is the nature of this God that created a man out of Mud and how did he do it? Does anyone have any ideas that might be believable in even a science fiction sort of way? He's God - he's omnipotent. He thought that the earth should be made and it was made. Given the characteristics the religious attribute to God, I think that's certainly logical. One interesting question to ask is, "Did God create the universe or just Earth?" In the Old Testament, it makes it seem like God created just the Earth. I wonder if the universe was there before God, and if he simply used the mechanisms of physics and biology to evolve a species in his own image. That would explain the evolution business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not argue that point at all. I am uncertain. I am not what is sometimes called a strong atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not hold that god cannot exist, I do not hold that we can likely know. I do not hold that a god does exist. To be a theist one MUST accept that god exists. To be atheist all one must not do is accept that god exists. I wish you had said that before. FFS we agree. lols |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the issue here is credulity. What does it take for you to accept something as true?
It takes an application of the scientific method with either Positive or Negative results. With the issue of God, neither a Positive nor a Negative result are possible because you cannot test the hypothesis that God exists or doesn't exist. Thus the position is: We do not know. This is a valid third point in science. Like I said: Positive = Belief Negative = Disbelief Neither = Uncertainty |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My definition of a Belief: An idea that is taken to be true. So, back to the pen: -You do not take it to be true that there is a pen in my pocket. -So...do you take it to be true that there is NO pen in my pocket? NOTE the EDIT. What is the default? With no information would there, Could there, ever be a reason to believe? This is where faith comes in dude. If you where a close friend of mine who was trust worthy and said that there was, Id believe you . . . . on faith. "With no information would there, Could there, ever be a reason to believe?" Well, believe what? -Believe that there IS a God? Nope, there's not enough information. -Believe that there IS NOT a God? Nope, there's not enough information. The simple fact that you did not answer yes or no to my question shows that you have not decided because -there is not enough information-. This state where you have not decided due to a lack of information is the state of Uncertainty. And what if I told you that you would never have enough information. Well, you maybe you would say that you cannot believe either way, and that's it - maybe Agnostics cannot believe either way because they don't feel there is enough information and there is never enough information. Thus, they do not believe, and they do not disbelieve. They are uncertain. Simply put: Yes. = Believe. No. = Disbelieve. I don't know if the answer is Yes or No. = Uncertainty. Okay, that's the last time I'm going to explain it in this thread. THAT I believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 04:10 PM
|
|
I don't see where your concern is.
I am not concerned with any move from non-sentient to sentient. I am talking about details of how evolution might happen. Okay, there was a story a while back about a chimp that preferred walking upright. Nobody could explain why, but he walked upright like a human. There did not seem to be anything different about him other than that. He was still a chimp. Okay something like that might happen and nothing changes. BUT maybe a chimp who likes to walk upright mates with another chimp that has the same feature. Now there is a possibility that their babies will all inherit this feature and maybe they won't. In any case that could be one tiny detail of how evolution happens. Now if these offspring separated from the rest of the troop of chimps and inner bred with their siblings, this trait might continue. The same goes with two chimps who seem to be more aware of themselves. They mate, and maybe their their offspring inherit that smart trait. In the Urantia book they claimed that two primate lemurs were born who were twins and they were extremely intelligent and more aware and so different from their troop that they left it and formed a mating bond. Even though they were twins, they mated and their offspring were like them, much more intelligent and walking more upright. They were the first primitive humans according to the Urantia Book. (They were NOT the "Adam and Eve" stock, which came much later.) In humans, I have noticed that when brother and sister mate and have a child, the child is sometimes different. I knew of a case like this where a brother and sister had two children. One was a genius and the other was 'retarded.' Some are less intelligent, and sometimes the offspring will be smarter than the average human. Sometimes a genius is born, from parents who were sister and brother. So perhaps evolution or de-evolution happens with a species closely interbreeds with related genes. These are just my ideas. If I were to get into the theory of evolution I would want to know how this kind of thing takes place and why--- specifically, and then see if DNA and genes can back up these (my) theories of inner breeding. But my theory of this kind of evolution is still just a theory. Before I started touting it as a likely fact I would want to see DNA proof and a boat load of evidence that has no large holes it it. So, let's say this upright-walking chimp has kids, and his kids adopt this behavior. Let's say it really catches on and his kids and other chimps start doing it. They discover that they can move about on two legs and, for example, through rocks at predators at the same time, so they find it useful. Sooner or later, the chimps that are better at this upright walking skill will seem more attractive to other chimps, so slowly, over many generations, the chimps become very good at walking upright. Well, that's evolution into a bipedal primate. Now, maybe although they're all better at throwing stuff, but there are some of these chimps who are a little smarter. The other chimps listen to what the smart guys' say because they're better able to trick other animals and get nutritious meat effectively. Well, all of a sudden, the chimps that are just by chance genetically smarter seem more attractive and have more babies. Over generations, a smarter chimp evolves. Well, now you have a smarter, bipedal primate that may one day, if things keep going well for it, figure out fire, the wheel, and finally write some Shakespeare. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 04:02 PM
|
|
My definition of a Belief: An idea that is taken to be true.
So, back to the pen: -You do not take it to be true that there is a pen in my pocket. -So...do you take it to be true that there is NO pen in my pocket? NOTE the EDIT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Define: Consciousness
|
|
Oops, I'm running a version of Linux that doesn't sense my hard drive from a bootable CD, so I can't save sh!t. I don't even have the ability to open PDFs at the moment. ^_^
*notquite00 is very disappointed* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, as to be very specific as to what I'm referring to:
In your post appears the statement to the effect of: One moment, God exists...in the next, he does not...Wow, that's a bad example. Well, perhaps yes, or perhaps he exists and does not exist at the same time. As I wrote above, if God is beyond our comprehension, etc, perhaps paradoxes like this fit. After all, you have the Trinity, where God is three things, but one thing? And then God has a son, who is supposedly God at the same time, who then dies and returns to God, who is himself? I mean, that's ridiculous, but when taken from the viewpoint of Quantum Mechanics, the concept is not quite so ridiculous (though it is still somewhat ridiculous).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So are you saying that god is a probability to people that believe, as well as a probability to those that do not believe? You use an example where it is a given that a coin has two sides. We all believe this, there is no question as to the existence of coins or that they have heads, AND tails. Then you try to assert that belief in god is like a coin toss. LOL. So the fact that one minute the coin can be heads then the next when we toss it again, it can be tails, does this make this a good example? No. God either exists or god does not exist, if god exists now, then the next moment god does not exist . . . wow. The worst example EVER. Probabilistic entities do no require belief. If the probability can be known, then it exists plain and simple regardless of what state it exists in from toss to toss. Heads never stops existing becuase it is on tails. ________________________________ Anything less then a belief, is non belief. I do think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the exact nature of God is a probability. I am saying that we HUMANS can feel about a certain concept a measure of uncertainty. For me, I say that God MIGHT exist, but that he MIGHT NOT exist. This is perfectly logical, for I do not know whether he exists or not. Let me ask you a question: Is there a pen in my pocket or isn't there? You have no basis by which to say, "I believe there is a pencil in your pocket." You have no basis to say the reverse is true either. So, this is uncertainty, and I argue that this is the state of Agnosticism, at least for some, and at least for me. Now, some versions of Quantum Mechanics take the pen in the pocket situation a step further. Some versions say that until you look in my pocket, *there is BOTH a pen in my pocket, and there is NOT a pen in my pocket*. Two universes exist simultaneously and when you finally view the pen, you collapse the two universes into one reality. This idea is illustrated by the thought experiment usually called Schrodinger's Cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat This idea is an observable phenomenon actually. I believe Quantum Tunneling can be explained simply by this idea, as well as the Wave-Particle Duality. Now, apply the same logic to divine beings. For such beings beyond our comprehension, we can easily say perhaps these beings BOTH exist and do not exist. Perhaps the whole concept of existence is completely different for divine beings? Who are we to define and limit the nature of a supposedly infinite being anyhow? Anyway, I think I have sufficiently shown you how there is not simply Belief and Disbelief, but Uncertainty as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See this indicates to me where the problem lives. When I say I don't quite buy something, what does that mean? If you have bought something, you own it, you are in possession of something, what is that thing? Belief. If I have NOT bought something, I do not own it, I am NOT in possession of it, what is this thing I have? Nothing. Your self proclaimed issue with this is that so many people that you do not want to call atheist would then be atheist. Why is an issue? Is it the stigma attacked to the word? I think so. I think the religious have made the word such a horrible thing, that to relate to it makes someone feel dirty . . . . You should seriously ask yourself why you do not want to associate this word with lack of belief. That is all that it is, lack of belief. Agnostic is an assertion on the ability to obtain positive knowledge that a god exists, not the individuals acceptance of its truth. Here I do not quite see your point. These people who I "don't want to call Atheist" - they don't buy the traditional sense of God, ie. they don't believe in it, but it's not that they do not believe in *a* sense of God. Thus, it's not that they disbelieve the possibility of God altogether, it is that they disbelieve the *traditional*, or Abrahamic/Hindu/Buddhist/Greek/etc sense of God and believe in something slightly different or something slightly looser. These people, I would argue then, are not, of course, Atheist. By the above argument, these people would fall under Agnosticism because they acknowledge the possibility of some sort of deity; they simply say that we do not know. Now, you may say that this "fact" that we do not know is a belief, but we have not proven the existence of God, nor have we proven that there isn't a God. Thus, by the scientific method, we can only shrug our shoulders and say, well...we don't know. Now, I don't care if I'm association with the label "Atheist," only that it is not true, at least by my above definition. I do not believe that there is no God, gods, or deity of any kind, shape, or form. I acknowledge that it is possible. I do not believe that these deities do not exist, nor do I disbelieve that they do not exist. Thus, I seem to exist at this state of Uncertainty that I described much earlier. Often in this world, we find that things are not quite black and white, I suppose. There is a spectrum, and there is a middle ground. I contest that Belief/Disbelief also has a middle ground called Uncertainty. And to tell you the truth, this state of Limbo, or State between Belief and Disbelief...let's just call it the state of Uncertainty. I wish I had come up with that sooner. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, not quite. I have a coin that's 50% heads, vice versa tails. Do you believe it will be heads? Or do you disbelieve it will be heads?
Well, you'd answer that you neither believe nor disbelieve, but that there is a possibility of both. Even if you tip the odds however which way, if I say there's a certain percentage for heads, you still wouldn't say, "Oh, I believe it'll be this way. Definitely!" You'd still say, "Probably it'll be heads or probably it'll be tails." I suppose we do not have a name for this state, but we can call it the state of Limbo between Outcomes, or the State between Belief and Disbelief. And you are right in saying that however one holds his reservations, he still does not believe. ...but he still doesn't disbelieve either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
|
|
its always . blame it on the gun. never put the blame on the poor excuse for leaving their guns laying around,guns dont kill people. morons with no class do. Well, I'm sure when they arrest the negligent adult, they're doing exactly what you're saying. O_o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Modern Mind
|
|
What a great thread, Nubby. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christian friends
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 02:16 PM
|
|
Hi, puede' practicar ingles conmigo. ;-) Y peudo practicar un poco espanol tambien hei hei ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let us kill Pop-culture...
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 02:14 PM
|
|
My question is, if your movement becomes at all popular, does your *movement* become *pop-culture*?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
4:20
|
|
I suppose my thread was not general enough for the "General Chat." Geez...that's some nifty dicing on the mod's part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
This is why I hate guns.
Edited by
notquite00
on
Mon 02/02/09 02:10 PM
|
|
I agree. I think I'll start looking for a firing range in NYC. ;-P
Mind messaging me about that drill a bit more? I'd like to hear stories, tactics, and your opinions about what happened. I'd especially like to hear about the 100 v 2000 scenario you mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
