Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:22pm PT
|
Wow. You are really unrelenting in your quest to avoid proving god=consciousness.
Somewhere, millions of years ago, an animal was conceived that possessed a "mutation" that allowed it to differentiate between self and non-self. This new ability to perceive allowed it to mate or defend itself or find food better than others. It mated and had offspring that also had the mutation. After a number of years, it became the dominant life form in its environment. The mutations continued and brought about new species with the new brain structure that could also compete. Eventually humans evolved and further improved on that mutation in that we can reason and post on supertopo.
There are some that still lack some of the reasoning skills, but eventually they will evolve or fade away from lack of ability to compete.
Of course, this doesn't preclude them from sharing their misperceptions on the 'taco...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
|
Well, a venti carmalata at Starbucks will you a lot more than $2.
Ok, so AGAIN, how EXACTLY does my dog having "consciousness' PROVE that the
Big Guy in the Sky "exists"?
|
|
scarface
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:27pm PT
|
So let me see if I got this right mastur. Consciousness = mutation? Is that like a spark or sumpthin?
Where did this "mutation" come from? Like the Big Bang?
SF
|
|
scarface
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:30pm PT
|
Norton,
I don't believe in the "Big Guy In The Sky". I am certainly not going to try to explain that concept.
Can someone perceive god as such? Sure, why not.
SF
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:31pm PT
|
Sorry. Are you really that uneducated? Try using the google instructions I posted above.
|
|
scarface
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:52pm PT
|
Sorry. Are you really that uneducated? Try using the google instructions I posted above.
If I wanted to google I wouldn't be on ST taking the pulse of the resident dualists.
Pate, Yaawn, Get over it. I don't need to answer to your sense of how things should be. Anyhow, your morality is in question after what you did to that poor bunny.
SF
edit: I don't follow instructions very well. Skeptilicious, I don't expect you to answer my question either, because I know you can't.
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
Bouncy Tiggerville
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:54pm PT
|
Let everyone's beliefs be their own, and let it be.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:07pm PT
|
Here you go Pretty sure you won't understand it, but that's probably the simplest I can make without spending hours on 6th grade biology (Hey, maybe Klimmer can explain it to you in terms a 6th grader can understand).
By the way, if you google "mutation" and "evolution" this is the first thing that pops up of over 10.6 million hits. I'm guessing there will be something remedial enough for you to grasp.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:18pm PT
|
Everybody knows "google" is a mind trick to plant lies on the unsuspecting
"sheeple" by the Main Stream Media, or something.
I don't need no stupid search engine or whatever they are called to know the TRUTH!
So there.
|
|
scarface
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:19pm PT
|
Skeptifungi,
Lets see, gene's mutate. Check
Gene's contain information in order to produce certain proteins. Check
There is a mutation in this "information" and before this mutation it isn't conscious, but after this mutation it is. Check
What did I learn.
That you enjoy being condescending.
Is this condescension the result of a mutation?
My conclusion.
Yes. Sometimes evolution happens in a punctuated event.
Were you beat as a child?
SF
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:27pm PT
|
Nice. You've just shown that if you can't win a debate with someone, then you'll resort to calling them names to try and provoke them. Very mature indeed. I'll bet you'd like to hit me too. I'm still waiting for you to irrefutably prove that god=consciousness.
I've answered all of your questions, why can't you answer mine?
Oh sorry. No, I had a very happy childhood.
|
|
scarface
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:36pm PT
|
I'm trying to win something?!?
god = consciousness. I stated that I think everything is consciousness. If you want to call it god or a mutation that is fine with me.
SF
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 10:04pm PT
|
Personally, a person's faith was a non-issue with me until certain branches calling themselves christian began doing things I had never associated with christ, began insisting that they be allowed to determine how others must live, and who had no problem with violating the law.
I agree jstan. That's why I find the way our military handles religion to be so instructional. In fact, I don't know if I could ever work again in a non ecumenical environment.
Our military is sworn to uphold the constitution as a whole, and religious freedom is only a part of the whole.You could say a general civic religion comes first and only afterwards, the various denominations. Perhaps if we had some sort of universal service (not all of it military), those ideals would trickle down.
As for praying for dead Iraqis and Afghanis, that is done too. Keep in mind Tony, that the military does what it's ordered to do. if you don't like our imperialism, change the political establishment, but of course that takes changing the voters so they're not misled by vested interests.
Any way you look at it, education is the key and there are plenty of indications that young people feel differently than the older generation. Just look at gay rights. The majority of young people polled see it as a civil rights issue primarily, not a religious one.
Meanwhile Fructose and some others might be interested to hear that the minister of the largest fundamentalist church off base, where they're allowed to be as narrow minded as they want, specifically told his congregation that education was good but whatever they did, they should avoid taking classes from myself because "she will challenge everything you believe". Of course, there's no higher compliment you can give a teacher.
Fortunately, young people being rebellious, I found out about this as several of their congregation appeared in my very next comparative religion and physical anthropology classes to find out what I was really like! What was so threatening, it turns out, was that I can quote scripture and give a different interpretation than what they've heard. Religious pluralism is a much greater threat to fundamentalism than atheism ever was.
|
|
Tung Gwok
Mountain climber
South Bend, Indiana
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 10:05pm PT
|
What I believe:
First, a clarification: This is not an attempt to proselytize. High Fructose and Norton have asked me at different times to state as clearly as I can my beliefs. This is a second attempt. I am just throwing it out there.
1) That God became human in Jesus of Narareth.
2) That Jesus' primary mission was to witness to the poor and the "wicked" (social outcasts) the offer of love.
3) That this mission got him killed.
4) That he rose from the dead.
5) That the belief that he rose from the dead is not rational in the modernistic understanding of rational. In fact, to the modern rationalist, this belief must appear very bizarre. This is not to say that a person cannot make sense of it, only that it does not fit in the worldview of modernist rationalism.
6)That, for the (authentic) Christian, the Resurrection confirms the mission to love the poor and outcast.
7) Therefore, the primary calling of the Christian is to love (affrim the dignity of) the poor and the outcast, even at risk to one's own life (This is not to say that people of other convictions cannot or do not have analogous callings.). The calling to risk one's life for the poor and outcast can only be argued so far; the best argument is to display the way of life of this calling (The web forum genre is limited in this respect.).
8) Although risk is not the point (love is), the clearest sign that a "Christian" is not a Christian (follower of Jesus Christ) is a life that has never been at risk for the poor and the outcast. Do such "Christians" think Jesus was joking or only being metaphorical when he said that anyone who follows him must take up the cross? In most societies, following the call to affirm the dignity of the poor and the outcast will marginalize and even be life-threatening to the (authentic) Christian. This is because most societies are oppressive in the fact that they rely on the construction of scapegoats (in most cases the poor and the "wicked") to retain social order. Violence-grounded order is not a fact only of Christian societies, but of most societies. To affirm the dignity of the outcast is to risk that violence oneself. I do work in warzones -- scenes of genocide, really -- and post-conflict zones. It's the best I can do.
Nort, Fructose, Pate, I know fake Christians piss you off. Fructose and Pate, perhaps all Christians do. For me, fake Christians bring a combination of anger and sadness.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 11:27pm PT
|
The real issues before us do relate to the separation of church and state. Not just the U.S. policy but also the basic idea. -Which has all these sides and dimensions and ramifications to it.
It's only natural (a) that Christians and Muslims want to see their values (their religious values) reflected in, also upheld by, their society's norms, policies and laws; (b) that they work, and are seen working, toward that objective.
This is where things get complicated and why they can get ugly.
.....
I did try to raise this discussion before. Of course it went over like a lead baloon and broke out into all these lines of misunderstanding. I guess I wasn't clear enough as some even thought I was trying to bring prayer to public schools.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1101085/Separation-of-Church-and-State-Not-in-Schools
.....
Pate- Once again, a little uncanny here. For a long time I've drawn a distinction between (a) respect for one's belief and (b) respect for one's right to belief. Just sayin' - as you posted that very thing a few pages back and in the zeitgeist (spirit of the times) one hardly hears that nuanced in public discourse. But maybe 10 years from now, a new zeitgeist will be at hand and more will be made of it, this distinction.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2010 - 12:02am PT
|
HFCS
On teaching comparative religion in public school.
When a realistic person proposes public policy they have the duty also to examine what approaches will be taken to game the new system. Like get real - as they used to say.
Comparative religion in schools fails that test. It is all we can do to enforce the blanket prohibition we have now.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2010 - 12:06am PT
|
Yes, permission to teach comparative religion in public elementary and secondary schools might easily be abused.
But then, part of the issue is the increasing proportion of students in private schools, placed there by parents concerned about standards in the public system, for religious/cultural reasons, or for "white flight" reasons. There's an open question as to what is taught in private schools, particularly given that many of the children of the wealthier attend them.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2010 - 02:35am PT
|
Yes, in regard to climbing anchors. No, in regard to consciousness.
Thank's for the plug, but I've studied consciousness a lot more than anchors. You're mistaking "self-awareness" for consciousness. But consciousness makes no sense without no-thingness from which it arises and to which it returns.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!