Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Are The Taliban Mentally Sick?


SHERWICK

Recommended Posts

My own position is that no one actually knows.

And that it is a much more complex issue than most people appear to appreciate.

:)

Don't you think it odd, that god is portrade as a white bloke with a beard.

Why not a black female homosexual cripple in a wheel chair?

We worship an image of ourselves...nothing more. Humans are god. Perfection and master of .........not a lot/.:(

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Did you watch the video. Someone poo-ed poo-ed it as Star Trek nonsense. In 5 minutes you get an insight into several of the World's great faiths or spiritual concepts.

Because it is so clear, if you immediately knew the candle-light was fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it odd, that god is portrade as a white bloke with a beard.

Why not a black female homosexual cripple in a wheel chair?

We worship an image of ourselves...nothing more. Humans are god. Perfection and master of .........not a lot/.:(

Well it isn't odd at all.

How else would we portray God if he was supposed to have created US in his own image?

And as you will know Moslems, which is a branch of Christianity, do not allow portrayals of God

which makes sense to me because how would you portray a multi dimensional super intellect anyway?

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern self-proclaimed atheists are really rather tiresome - that's not to say self-proclaimed religious followers aren't either.

My problem is their failure to acknowledge the fact their morality is lazily looted from Christianity or some other, typically, Abrahamic religion - their belief is they are somehow innately good and their values are self-determined which, even given the tiniest amount of thought, is clearly the most absurd hubris.

This leads to them following their 'own' moral code which I rather suspect the application of which may become somewhat sloppy or simply, given its far from set in stone nature, make downwards revisions to suit their own behaviour or self-interest, on a whim.

What humanity benchmarks its behaviour against has to be as unalterable as possible and obviously cannot be any kind of human being because of their inherent human frailties.It has to be some sort of mental construct or thought experiment, at the very least, an imagined version of the perfect human being, tirelessly selfless and impossibly wise.

This is how you arrive at a god figure.

How far you want to go down the spiritual / sky fairy / shaking a tambourine in a church hall route is down to personal choice.

And stop wobbling on about child abuse like some tedious Dorkins(sic) disciple Injin. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern self-proclaimed atheists are really rather tiresome - that's not to say self-proclaimed religious followers aren't either.

My problem is their failure to acknowledge the fact their morality is lazily looted from Christianity or some other, typically, Abrahamic religion - their belief is they are somehow innately good and their values are self-determined which, even given the tiniest amount of thought, is clearly the most absurd hubris.

This leads to them following their 'own' moral code which I rather suspect the application of which may become somewhat sloppy or simply, given its far from set in stone nature, make downwards revisions to suit their own behaviour or self-interest, on a whim.

What humanity benchmarks its behaviour against has to be as unalterable as possible and obviously cannot be any kind of human being because of their inherent human frailties.It has to be some sort of mental construct or thought experiment, at the very least, an imagined version of the perfect human being, tirelessly selfless and impossibly wise.

This is how you arrive at a god figure.

How far you want to go down the spiritual / sky fairy / shaking a tambourine in a church hall route is down to personal choice.

And stop wobbling on about child abuse like some tedious Dorkins(sic) disciple Injin. ;)

My position on religion being child abuse is pretty simple - telling lies to children that will fundamentally alter their life choices and affect them for decades is abuse. That's leaving aside the slaps, beltings and other stuff that tends to go on with seriously irrational people (the only way to get someone to go along with this sort of outright fantasy after the first bout of questions leave a hole in it is violence.)

I agree about the ethical point, however. Far too many peopel who refute god based on objective grounds then want morality to be subjective. Cake and eat it, much?

If god doesn't exist objectively and morals do objectively, then morals are objective. You don't get to pick and choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Modern self-proclaimed atheists are really rather tiresome - that's not to say self-proclaimed religious followers aren't either.

My problem is their failure to acknowledge the fact their morality is lazily looted from Christianity or some other, typically, Abrahamic religion - their belief is they are somehow innately good and their values are self-determined which, even given the tiniest amount of thought, is clearly the most absurd hubris.

This leads to them following their 'own' moral code which I rather suspect the application of which may become somewhat sloppy or simply, given its far from set in stone nature, make downwards revisions to suit their own behaviour or self-interest, on a whim.

What humanity benchmarks its behaviour against has to be as unalterable as possible and obviously cannot be any kind of human being because of their inherent human frailties.It has to be some sort of mental construct or thought experiment, at the very least, an imagined version of the perfect human being, tirelessly selfless and impossibly wise.

This is how you arrive at a god figure.

How far you want to go down the spiritual / sky fairy / shaking a tambourine in a church hall route is down to personal choice.

And stop wobbling on about child abuse like some tedious Dorkins(sic) disciple Injin. ;)

If you're including me among your self-proclaimed atheists then please don't - I have neither proclaimed nor named myself anything. I simply do not "believe" in god in the same way that I don't "believe" there is a tyrannosaurus rex at the front door. The greater balance of probabilities just tells me it's not there, so there is no reason to believe it is. That will remain the case until something happens that convinces me to change my mind.

As for the morality, maybe it's just self-evident. For instance when I was very young I "invented" the steam engine. Just because some bloke had a revelation (no pun intended) and wrote stuff down 2000 years ago doesn't mean he's bagged sole rights to those conclusions. Maybe personal morality is just the low hanging fruit of intelligence?

Anyway, most people's moral code is formed from what is enshrined in law.

And Injin is completely correct about the child abuse. When I think of some of the bullcrap that was passed of to me as "education" (I went to a CofE controlled primary school) I could really get very quite annoyed. Not really because it was obvious bullcrap, but because the time could have been spent doing something more useful.

eight

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern self-proclaimed atheists are really rather tiresome - that's not to say self-proclaimed religious followers aren't either.

My problem is their failure to acknowledge the fact their morality is lazily looted from Christianity or some other, typically, Abrahamic religion - their belief is they are somehow innately good and their values are self-determined which, even given the tiniest amount of thought, is clearly the most absurd hubris.

This leads to them following their 'own' moral code which I rather suspect the application of which may become somewhat sloppy or simply, given its far from set in stone nature, make downwards revisions to suit their own behaviour or self-interest, on a whim.

What humanity benchmarks its behaviour against has to be as unalterable as possible and obviously cannot be any kind of human being because of their inherent human frailties.It has to be some sort of mental construct or thought experiment, at the very least, an imagined version of the perfect human being, tirelessly selfless and impossibly wise.

This is how you arrive at a god figure.

How far you want to go down the spiritual / sky fairy / shaking a tambourine in a church hall route is down to personal choice.

And stop wobbling on about child abuse like some tedious Dorkins(sic) disciple Injin. ;)

It's actually the other way round - God was invented and the religions that went along with it stole from what came before, including morality. This is well acknowledged. Hence the default position of humans for the majority of their existence on the earth is that there is no 'intelligent creator'.

This, quite simply, is the position of Atheism - 'I don't believe your invented story of an intelligent creator'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually the other way round - God was invented and the religions that went along with it stole from what came before, including morality. This is well acknowledged. Hence the default position of humans for the majority of their existence on the earth is that there is no 'intelligent creator'.

This, quite simply, is the position of Atheism - 'I don't believe your invented story of an intelligent creator'.

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

I think we did that one a few pages back, but welcome to the debate. Feel free to add in some Star Trek views of the Universe. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're including me among your self-proclaimed atheists then please don't - I have neither proclaimed nor named myself anything. I simply do not "believe" in god in the same way that I don't "believe" there is a tyrannosaurus rex at the front door. The greater balance of probabilities just tells me it's not there, so there is no reason to believe it is. That will remain the case until something happens that convinces me to change my mind.

As for the morality, maybe it's just self-evident. For instance when I was very young I "invented" the steam engine. Just because some bloke had a revelation (no pun intended) and wrote stuff down 2000 years ago doesn't mean he's bagged sole rights to those conclusions. Maybe personal morality is just the low hanging fruit of intelligence?

Anyway, most people's moral code is formed from what is enshrined in law.

And Injin is completely correct about the child abuse. When I think of some of the bullcrap that was passed of to me as "education" (I went to a CofE controlled primary school) I could really get very quite annoyed. Not really because it was obvious bullcrap, but because the time could have been spent doing something more useful.

eight

Sorry, but I don't believe that the T.Rex at the front door is a logically valid analogy.

The question really is, what happens when we die?

I have left my house via my front door thousands of times in my life and so has every other human on the planet and not once has there been a T.Rex waiting for me.

So far I have not died and every human being that has never reported back on what happened.

As a result what happens to our consciousness when we die is pretty much open to debate IMO

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern self-proclaimed atheists are really rather tiresome - that's not to say self-proclaimed religious followers aren't either.

My problem is their failure to acknowledge the fact their morality is lazily looted from Christianity or some other, typically, Abrahamic religion - their belief is they are somehow innately good and their values are self-determined which, even given the tiniest amount of thought, is clearly the most absurd hubris.

This leads to them following their 'own' moral code which I rather suspect the application of which may become somewhat sloppy or simply, given its far from set in stone nature, make downwards revisions to suit their own behaviour or self-interest, on a whim.

What humanity benchmarks its behaviour against has to be as unalterable as possible and obviously cannot be any kind of human being because of their inherent human frailties.It has to be some sort of mental construct or thought experiment, at the very least, an imagined version of the perfect human being, tirelessly selfless and impossibly wise.

This is how you arrive at a god figure.

How far you want to go down the spiritual / sky fairy / shaking a tambourine in a church hall route is down to personal choice.

And stop wobbling on about child abuse like some tedious Dorkins(sic) disciple Injin. ;)

This is pretty much exactly my position.

All humans believe in something, that is what makes us human

and people and societies that deny the possibility of 'God' just create their own much worse alternatives.

Personally, given the choice I would much rather worship 'God' than Kim II Sung, Chairman Mao or Stalin.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My position on religion being child abuse is pretty simple - telling lies to children that will fundamentally alter their life choices and affect them for decades is abuse. That's leaving aside the slaps, beltings and other stuff that tends to go on with seriously irrational people (the only way to get someone to go along with this sort of outright fantasy after the first bout of questions leave a hole in it is violence.)

I agree about the ethical point, however. Far too many peopel who refute god based on objective grounds then want morality to be subjective. Cake and eat it, much?

If god doesn't exist objectively and morals do objectively, then morals are objective. You don't get to pick and choose.

But Injin, you have just created your own intellectual fantasy which is just as much a lie as anyone else's.

And if there is a 'God', this being is not responsible for religion or anything done in the name of religion because these are human creations and actions.

The Aztecs made human sacrifices to the Sun, does this make the Sun responsible for these deaths?

I don't think so.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Injin, you have just created your own intellectual fantasy which is just as much a lie as anyone else's.

How do you know? (Without proving me right that facts are superior to opinions.)

And if there is a 'God', this being is not responsible for religion or anything done in the name of religion because these are human creations and actions.

The Aztecs made human sacrifices to the Sun, does this make the Sun responsible for these deaths?

I don't think so.

:)

No, it makes the individuals concerned responsible.

Either god is there and they are responsible or god isn't and they are responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know? (Without proving me right that facts are superior to opinions.)

No, it makes the individuals concerned responsible.

Either god is there and they are responsible or god isn't and they are responsible.

I don't know but neither do you.

And if 'God' did exist, this existence would be entirely independent of humanity as you have acknowledged.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
.

As a result what happens to our consciousness when we die is pretty much open to debate IMO

Why? There's no logical reason to suppose anything happens after you die other than a bit of decomposition. It's only a debate when you make unsupported assumptions about conciousness, when there's absolutely no reason to think there are any significant differences between dying and what happens to a computer when you turn it off (or any other machine).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know but neither do you.

And if 'God' did exist, this existence would be entirely independent of humanity as you have acknowledged.

:)

How do you knwo you don't know? (without proving me right there is an objective reality.)

That's right - because the existence of stuff is based on material facts, nopt human whim. That's why there is no god.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? There's no logical reason to suppose anything happens after you die other than a bit of decomposition. It's only a debate when you make unsupported assumptions about conciousness, when there's absolutely no reason to think there are any significant differences between dying and what happens to a computer when you turn it off (or any other machine).

Currently computers operate at very high voltages compared to the human brain.

I am not an 'expert' on this subject, but it is very likely IMO that our brains operate at a quantum level and are affected by quantum events.

If our brains operate at this level then our consciousness exists in other dimensions (string theory) although we are obviously not aware of this in our day to day lives.

This might explain things like ESP and premonition (if these things exist)

And who is to say that one day we might not create a computer so complex that it actually becomes conscious and might therefore posses a soul.

Personally my own feeling is that machine intelligence is the next step in the evolution of consciousness in the Universe.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that my main point is that the need to believe in something is what makes us human

And if we deny this, we deny our own humanity.

:)

but why not believe in facts and reality rather than ********?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't believe that the T.Rex at the front door is a logically valid analogy.

The question really is, what happens when we die?

I have left my house via my front door thousands of times in my life and so has every other human on the planet and not once has there been a T.Rex waiting for me.

So far I have not died and every human being that has never reported back on what happened.

As a result what happens to our consciousness when we die is pretty much open to debate IMO

:)

Its perfectly valid, when you die a t-rex pops out of space and time, snaffles up your conciousness and does a bunk back to wherever he came from, i read it in an old book once so it must be true.

I suppose that my main point is that the need to believe in something is what makes us human

And if we deny this, we deny our own humanity.

This is what pisses me off most about religious people, the statements such as "the need to belive in something is what makes us human" are used to try and be intelligent and hide that the god arguments is based on nothing other than ideas

Im a human (That is a fact), i dont believe in any of this old waffle (That is also a fact), therefore your point is proved invalid as i used two facts to disprove it

Now im off to hide from the t-rex

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently computers operate at very high voltages compared to the human brain.

I am not an 'expert' on this subject, but it is very likely IMO that our brains operate at a quantum level and are affected by quantum events.

If our brains operate at this level then our consciousness exists in other dimensions (string theory) although we are obviously not aware of this in our day to day lives.

This might explain things like ESP and premonition (if these things exist)

And who is to say that one day we might not create a computer so complex that it actually becomes conscious and might therefore posses a soul.

Personally my own feeling is that machine intelligence is the next step in the evolution of consciousness in the Universe.

:)

All you say is that they are two different machines with two different levels of complexity. The level they operate on doesn't mean anything. You've also made a rather huge assumption with "... and might therefore posess a soul," as well as a large number of smaller ones with all the "mights".

Quantum level operations do not automatically lead to valid assumptions being made about other universes; there are plenty of well-known and well-explained physical phenomena which rely on them including (IIRC, could be wrong) semiconductors, which are pretty important to the computer. Besides, appealing to areas of uncertainty is simply finding a gap in the theory that allows you to imagine anything. That is not sound thinking unless you've got a well-observed, well-documented unexplained phenomena to account for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Sorry, but I don't believe that the T.Rex at the front door is a logically valid analogy.

The question really is, what happens when we die?

:)

The tyrannosaurus rex (I had to look up the spelling of that just for this thread, so won't start abbreviating it now!) is a perfectly valid analogy for me, which is all that matters to me.

What happens when we die is that our brains and bodies stop functioning. That is all.

eight

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is just safer to leave religion alone. Those with belief will never change the minds of those without and vice verca. It is like two people both with their fingers in their ears arguing with each other - pointless. You cant argue with believer anymore than you can a fanatic or someone that has been brainwashed.

If believing makes you happy then I am glad, I dont share that belief but am pleased that it makes people happy. What I dislike with every bone in my body is the church, organised religion and religion the tool of control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is just safer to leave religion alone. Those with belief will never change the minds of those without and vice verca. It is like two people both with their fingers in their ears arguing with each other - pointless. You cant argue with believer anymore than you can a fanatic or someone that has been brainwashed.

If believing makes you happy then I am glad, I dont share that belief but am pleased that it makes people happy. What I dislike with every bone in my body is the church, organised religion and religion the tool of control.

Amen to that...

:huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.