God R U There? Do U Hate Me?

[slicker]

your supposed to.

How do you know this?

I'm up for hearing the answer to that.

ok i'll answer a question with a question.

can you show me a society or culture that does not attempt to address the meaning of life issue?

im not defining an outcome, just a question.

some people accept an atheists answer, others a spiritual answer

both are trying to answer the question.

[Randalizer]

I see religions as ways of attempting to subvert a persons inclinations and intuitions. Christians may be right about people feeling a hole in their life, but that in no way means they have an answer for it. Or at least an honest answer.

It seems to me is that all religions really do is plug people back into their communities, to help get them to be a part of it. A part that helps the community thrive. While taking their dime off the top for their efforts.

But these days you really don't need a religion in order to be able to do that.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Randalizer

[Bill Dick]

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, that'll put you right on a few things. In the meantime, talk to friends, talk to family...you'll be fine.

[kgb]

there cant be a god,proof:Micheal Winner is still alive!

[redtilidie]

i dont believe in religion,all its done is cause war and bloodshed for hundreds of years and thats all over the world.

i believe that certain people turn to religion to be at peace or to find themselves.

i personally think that what goes on around us and in our lives affects our true person.it needs something for alot of people to truly find themselves,whether,that be going to church,takin up meditation,yoga,etc.etc.

i really feel for ya m8,but youve just gotta find something or someone that makes everything worth while whether it will be a family member,missus etc.

you have just gotta think positive m8.

good luck and keep your chin up

Edited March 13, 2010 by redtilidie

[The Black Sheep]

just reading Topography of the Psycedelic experince by Dan Carpenter, he's gotten some pretty good theories of universal life (god and all sorts of weird beings) with DXM and are inline with similar corroborations of DMT use especially smoking it.

Not that I am encouraging cough syrup abuse or toad smoking, but really got me thinking, may your journey be safe and fruitful.

TBS

[herbie666]

Whoever we are

Wherever we're from

We shoulda noticed by now

Our behavior is dumb

And if our chances

Expect to improve

It's gonna take a lot more

Than tryin' to remove

The other race

Or the other whatever

From the face

Of the planet altogether

They call it the earth

Which is a dumb kinda name

But they named it right

'cause we behave the same...

We are dumb all over

Dumb all over,

Yes we are

Dumb all over,

Near 'n far

Dumb all over,

Black 'n white

People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left

Nurds on the right

Religous fanatics

On the air every night

Sayin' the bible

Tells the story

Makes the details

Sound real gory

'bout what to do

If the geeks over there

Don't believe in the book

We got over here

You can't run a race

Without no feet

'n pretty soon

There won't be no street

For dummies to jog on

Or doggies to dog on

Religous fanatics

Can make it be all gone

(I mean it won't blow up

'n disappear

It'll just look ugly

For a thousand years...)

You can't run a country

By a book of religion

Not by a heap

Or a lump or a smidgeon

Of foolish rules

Of ancient date

Designed to make

You all feel great

While you fold, spindle

And mutilate

Those unbelievers

From a neighboring state

To arms! to arms!

Hooray! that's great

Two legs ain't bad

Unless there's a crate

They ship the parts

To mama in

For souvenirs: two ears (get down!)

Not his, not hers, (but what the hey? )

The good book says:

("it gotta be that way!")

But their book says:

"revenge the crusades...

With whips 'n chains

'n hand grenades..."

Two arms? two arms?

Have another and another

Our God says:

"there ain't no other!"

Our God says

"it's all okay!"

Our God says

"this is the way!"

It says in the book:

"burn 'n destroy...

'n repent, 'n redeem

'n revenge, 'n deploy

'n rumble thee forth

To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side

'cause they don't go for what's in the book

'n that makes 'em bad

So verily we must choppeth them up

And stompeth them down

Or rent a nice french bomb

To poof them out of existance

While leaving their real estate just where we need it

To use again

For temples in which to praise our god

("cause he can really take care of business!")

And when his humble tv servant

With humble white hair

And humble glasses

And a nice brown suit

And maybe a blond wife who takes phone calls

Tells us our God says

It's okay to do this stuff

Then we gotta do it,

'cause if we don't do it,

We ain't gwine up to hebbin!

(depending on which book you're using at the

Time...can't use theirs... it don't work

...it's all lies...gotta use mine...)

Ain't that right?

That's what they say

Every night...

Every day...

Hey, we can't really be dumb

If we're just following god's orders

Hey, let's get serious...

God knows what he's doin'

He wrote this book here

An' the book says:

He made us all to be just like him,"

So...

If we're dumb...

Then God is dumb...

(an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)

[weed_G]

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, that'll put you right on a few things.

dawkins is a con man, someone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist ..what do you call someone who thinks that no one else should believe in god? ....every accusation made by dawkins against religion could be made equally against science ..this is a fact he never acknowledges ..science and religion are only belief systems

bill o'rielly is a cretin but he is all over dawkins like a rash in several vids ...see dawkins panicking at the end ..saying 'yes but hitler was a catholic' :: ..there is another vid where he admits to o'reilly 'he has no idea how the universe started ..'

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

i dont believe in religion,all its done is cause war and bloodshed for hundreds of years and thats all over the world.

based on the scientific evidence, religion has civilised us ...people were more violent before

for more than than the last 100-400 years the biggest bloodsheds have been science/materialism based ..or enabled by science ...or the 'completive edge' from which violent domination became possible being facilitated by science

[ratdog]

your supposed to.

How do you know this?

I'm up for hearing the answer to that.

ok i'll answer a question with a question.

can you show me a society or culture that does not attempt to address the meaning of life issue?

im not defining an outcome, just a question.

some people accept an atheists answer, others a spiritual answer

both are trying to answer the question.

Sorry, but that doesn`t really tell me why i have to struggle with the question.

[skunker]

science and religion are only belief systems

Religion requires faith - if Gods existence could ever be proven we wouldn't need religion anymore, surely. Science on the other hand makes specific, testable theories that can usually be checked (albeit sometime very expensively e.g. CERN, and sometimes not at all with our current technology).

So I don't see that they are both belief systems, because I don't require faith for the latter.

Just my 2p

[weed_G]

other hand makes specific, testable theories that can usually be checked (albeit sometime very expensively e.g. CERN, and sometimes not at all with our current technology).

So I don't see that they are both belief systems, because I don't require faith for the latter.

that's sums up the counter argument nicely so let's start with that ..can you choose something from science that you would say is incontrovertible(thnx floyd) ..or axiomatic ..and not at least partially or wholly faith based

Edited March 13, 2010 by weed_G

[Splat the Fly]

> God R U There?

No

> Do U Hate Me?

God is not there to ask

[skunker]

other hand makes specific, testable theories that can usually be checked (albeit sometime very expensively e.g. CERN, and sometimes not at all with our current technology).

So I don't see that they are both belief systems, because I don't require faith for the latter.

that's sums up the counter argument nicely so let's start with that ..can you choose something from science that you would say is incontrovertible(thnx floyd) ..or axiomatic ..and not at least partially or wholly faith based

Don't confuse me with a scientist! I'd like to wear a lab coat, but they look stupid on me!

OK, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but lets try "Mass-energy equivalence" (E=MC²)

[Bill Dick]

that's sums up the counter argument nicely so let's start with that ..can you choose something from science that you would say is incontrovertible(thnx floyd) ..or axiomatic ..and not at least partially or wholly faith based

That thing you're typing on for a start.

[weed_G]

Don't confuse me with a scientist!

OK, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but lets try "Mass-energy equivalence" (E=MC²)

I'm not religious either, we're just chewing the fat right?,

e=mc2 is quite a convoluted and abstract idea ..thats almost impossible to proof for all but a tiny handful of scientists ..everyone else has to have 'faith' that they got the sums correct ..and the relevant practical tests have been made ..mind you only need one exception for it to be invalid

even for the scientists who can 'observe the proof directly' ..they still must have some faith that they are not anthropomorphising what's being observed, iow they are not just projecting 'self-validating human shapes/patterns' onto the subject matter ..iow observing what's actually there..not observing their own self-projections ..scientists are not immune from mass hysteria and self-delusion(it's just better organised )

there are many problems with the standard model in terms of the new discoveries in sub-atomic physics ..even with the most sophisticated scientific instrument to date..cern..science is struggling to match the standard model with what's going on at sub-atomic level ..the smallest building blocks of matter are still something of a mystery... using science to understand something complicated usually follows a process of deconstruction..or breaking things down to their basic parts..if you can work out how the individual parts work and how they interact with the other parts then you can make sense of large complex systems ..the fact we are largely in the dark on the basic building blocks ..what might that say on what we know of the overall structure

First, "What's Wrong With E=MC^2?"

So what is the problem with Einstein's mass-energy relation?

Well, to put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a mass-energy relation. What does exist is a mass-energy-momentum relation. The equation Einstein came up with more than a century ago can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. However, very, very few people seem to have paid attention to Einstein's warnings, nor to any of the more recent warnings. Even worse, the vast majority of authors of popular science books take great liberty in applying E=mc2 to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, and then declare mass to increase with velocity in an attempt to recover consistency in what has become an incoherent mix of relativistic and Newtonian dynamics. Theoretical physicist Lev Okun refers to this practice as a “pedagogical virus”.

Second, "Why No New Einstein?"

Pretty much every knowledgeable particle theorist that I talk to these days, string theorist and non-string theorist, agrees that current ideas about how to go beyond the standard model are not working very well. Everyone hopes that some big new idea will come along and show the way forward, with people often wistfully speaking about how maybe some bright post-doc out there may be at this very moment working on the needed new idea. The problem with this is that what is needed is probably something quite different than any of the current popular research programs, and finding it may be difficult enough to require someone’s concerted effort over quite a few years. If this is so, it’s very hard to see how anyone on the standard career path in the US is going to be able to do this. A young post-doc here generally only has a couple years in between needing to apply for new jobs, and if he or she were to devote those years to working hard on a very speculative new idea, this would most likely be suicidal for their career.

www.litigationandtrial.com/2009/08/articles/management/brain-food/why-no-new-einstein-and-whats-wrong-with-emc2/

That thing you're typing on for a start.

is it a keyboard ...a bunch of atoms ..or unknown ..google 'wave function collapse'

Edited March 13, 2010 by weed_G