Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me


< sordo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5t06q8F1bgol7U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:49:53 -0600, "Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fq5lm35sslio3n77c1go4iaj579r6h53dp@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:24:28 -0600, "Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:olhjm3h5lu6lsari110g5skq99ha8uhl4u@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:36:00 -0600, "Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ncchm318hgbdu93qc4c3pgmhrdujjc37r4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:25:54 -0800, Rita <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:56:20 -0600, "Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13mgq2gqnmkmn49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4768641b$0$4965$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13mfhr8irj7a380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m7udnegLJZMi1PranZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Galt wrote:
---[snip]---

You think science will answer "Why are we here?" Ever?

(If so, you have more faith than I do.)

JG



By your question do you mean, "For what purpose are we here?"

"Why we are here?" is easily answered by science as JP pointed
out.

I didn't see any "science." No math, no theory, no
experimentation,
no
model, no peer-reviewed paper, no universally acclaimed
conclusion.
Did
you?

I disagree, John. I am not sure what it is called; I will just
call
it
astronomical stastistics, takes a stab at calculating the
probability
of
life occuring in the universe. That provides the answer that
given
enough time, somewhere in the universe life will appear. There are
stastistical data for that.


What I saw a cute logicians dodge to the question, which is a
serious
question that philosophers (both theist and non) have been
pondering
for
millenia.

If that does it for you, good for you. However, you'll excuse us
'foolish theologians' for chuckling as we watch the non-theists
tie
themselves into rhetorical knots for no other purpose than to
avoid
having to consider a possibility they do not wish to consider.
(But,
you're in good company. Einstien created an imaginary variable to
allow
himself to avoid the possibility of theism in his cosmological
research,
an action he later called the worst mistake he had ever made.)

I don't consider it any more foolish than theists praying for
something.

Perfectly understandable from the perspective held.

If
they counted the number of times that they prayed for something
and
didn't get it, compared to the number of times they prayed for
something
and then felt they had their prayer answered, I think they would
re-evaluate the efficiency of prayer.



Let me make a suggestion. A *wise* non-theist, when presented
with
such
a question, would simply say "Science doesn't provide the tools
to
answer that question. Thus, I cannot answer the question as
unanswerable, and I'm OK with that . YMMV." (An alternative
response
would be that of the nilhist, who simply would have said "Who
cares?".)

I didn't say it in this thread but I have said it before that I
don't
lose any sleep or interrupt any cartoon watching to ponder
questions
for
which there is no need to worry about.

Which is why the "who cares" option was provided above.


Or, put another way. If you presuppose science to have *all* the
answers
to *all* possible questions, and thus to be infallable and
omniscient,
then all you've done is replace my God with one of your own.

I don't view science the same way you do. You seem to view
science
as
a
repository for knowledge like a building or a church.

No. You should know I have a degree in molecular biology, and I
appreciated your earlier description of the scientific method. I
understand the method well enough, and have spent well too much
time
explaining it myself to laypeople who have difficulty understanding
that
it indeed is a process, rather than, well, having other
characteristics
that others wish to thrust upon it.

Science is a process.

Precisely.

A human process at that. It is a method of human discovery of the
world
around us. It is dynamic, unlike religion which is static until it
is
defeated and then re-morphs into something else. Science
discovers,
and
rediscovers and continues as long as new data is discovered. If
religion
was more like science, it might have a chance at survival. Since
it
is
not, I don't think religion will last another 300 years.

If God does not exist, you may be right, If He does, then....not.
Whether
it is or is not like science is not relevant.

JG

I, for one, have never said there is no God. I am not that kind of
atheist.
The position that I hold is that I do not beleive in the Biblical
version
of
a god based upon several factors which I will go into if you would
like.

As an adult, I have tried to do some things a little differently than
I
would do as a child. As an adult, I start with the hypothesis,
collect
the
evidence, and then theorize.

1.The hypothesis is that there is a god as described in the Bible.
2. I find no evidence for that hypothesis,
Conclusion: No theory or belief.

Further, I know that the physical universe, as well as all that is in
it,
exists. Where it came from, whether it was produced from nothing or
whether
it has always existed I need not concern myself with as I cannot
answer
that. But even though I cannot answer that question does not mean
that
the
default answer is "your God" or mine or anyone else's.

When a differential diagnosis is attempted, all possible conventional
causes
as well as non-conventional causes are considered. When those are
tested,
either directly or indirectly, and one is not confirmed then other
ideas
are
considered.

It seems to me that in religion, no other possible causes are ever
considered. No differential is ever attempted. The Bible says one
thing,
and that is that. When someone can prove to me that the Bible is the
word
of God, and that God is the maker of the universe, then I will accept
every
word in it. Until then, I take the Bible the same way I take fish; I
eat
the flesh and leave the bones.

One of the things I cannot understand though is how a person such as
yourself, and there are many others, can in my view, function in an
area
of
science or technology in which a high degree of critical thinking
skills
are
required, and then the next moment can talk seriously about faith
issues
that require one to suspend those critical thinking skills.

I am assuming you are working as a biologist now; so can you imagine
what
would happen if you decided to write a paper in which you proposed a
hypothesis of DNA transcription, cell membrane transport mechanisms
or
mitochondrial energy synthesis that involved little angels actually
doing
all those things? You wouldn't because it doesn't make sense and you
know
it doesn't work that way. It is not only not logical, but you would
never
find any evidence for it.

But you treat religion in exactly that way. And that is what I don't
understand.

JP

Can't say I agree with you, Jean Paul. I think it is perfectly
possible to be a very good scientist and also be a religious person.
John might well say the types of "evidence" for each are not the
same. What you say would be true if John denied the claims of
science but I thought we had established the existence or non-
existence of god is not subject to scientific proof. And he does
not scoff at science, far from it.

We all have faith in some things. I have faith that compassion
for others is one of the most important qualities a human can
possess. I can't prove that scientifically in the least. In fact,
every day I read stories that set out to prove that compassion
comes back to bite you.


I don't have "faith" in that. As I've mentioned, I find nihilism
pointless, so I need something else. Compassion for others
(and especially for cats and dogs) is one of the most pleasant
and instinctive things for me. Do I really think we're just
"swirling atoms around the perennial antipodes", as Charles
Ives put it? Yes, but that's not an enjoyable way to think
all the time, even when you're walking down the street
trying to find the candy store where your friend just bought
some salt-water taffy.

I bring that last bit up, because my phenomenal habitual
level of obliviousness was carried to an unusually high
degree even for me in regard to the candy store, which
is only four blocks from my flat.. As I emailed to my friend
a while ago:

I managed to locate the candy store. First I walked all the way
up the block without seeing the store, then I walked back, stopped
in at a store that had lots of little coloured things, but after a few
minutes I realized it was only selling lipstick or hanging deodorant
or something like that. So I asked, and the clerk said the candy
store was right next to the pizza place. So I walked back, saw a
sign for candies and frozen bananas standing up in the street, which
I must have had to walk around on my way up the street. I went in
the store, and after a little while realized there were no candies
there either. Then I thought that although I was close to the pizza
place, it's possible there was one more store before I got to it, so I
went outside and sure enough there was, so I finally was able to buy
some taffy. Remember this the next time you're amazed that I've
never heard of things that are just a couple of blocks from my flat.

I am struggling at this point in my life to find meaning and enthusiasm
for
the future. I finally, after years of study and reading, gave up a
belief
in
traditional religious beliefs.

I am at the present somewhat of a nihilist and fatalist. I am trying to
find
things to get me excited about just being alive and living life and it
is
difficult, but I have hope that I will find what I am looking for before
long.


My solution against nihilism, which is pretty quirky and may not
work for everybody, is to note that if nothing matters, then nihilism
doesn't matter either, so there's no point paying it much mind even
if it's true. You might as well do what strikes your fancy. For most
of us, that's tied to taking part in the company of other people,
pets and hobbies. Nihilism offers no objection to your becoming a
mass murderer if that's what you want to do, but luckily that's
not what most of us want to do, especially since most of us also
don't want to be captured and executed. That doesn't include
those Christians who are prevented from rape and pillage only by
fear of the Lord, so if it's really true for them that's the only
thing holding them back, we shouldn't try to talk those people
out of religion.

Sir Fred in this group is plagued by "existential angst". I have
no solution for him except to tread more lightly if he can, but I
expect if that worked for him, he'd already be doing it.

He who clasps to himself a joy
Doth the fragile life destroy,
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in an eternal sun-rise.
-- Blake
(easier said than done, sometimes)

Happiness only comes in the absence of desire?


So says the Buddha, and I suppose he's right, but I'm
very happily trapped in the cycle of quiet desperation
myself.

Bernard Shaw noted in objection to "heaven" that
he didn't want to be a perfect and fulfilled being
happily floating in a sea of tranquility (my words, not
his). He wanted to be there with all his desires, his
interests, and his aggravations, because (my words
again, not his) that is who he IS.

"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way"
-- Pink Floyd

I have wondered before what one would do in Heaven. The only answer I have
ever received from religious people is, "Heavenly things".

Shitpackers don't go to Heaven.

If man enters man he doesn't enter Heaven.

Homosexuality is an abomination and a cancer on society !!!


I think the Bible made it pretty clear that a rich man would find it about as easy to get into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. When you consider sordo's finances compared to most of the people in the world today, he is most likely a very rich man.

I think Jesus said something about giving away all your possessions and follow him. I don't know any Christians that do that.

As a matter of fact, what is in vogue nowadays seems to be the "prosperity preachers". Let's see, one and his wife say that God wants you to have wealth and have it abundantly. I just can't seem to find that in my Bible.

So, sordo probably ought to make good friends with Rumple cause if sordo is right, they will both be spending a long long time together.

JP

.