Dwayner Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 lI1|1! Get the chip off your shoulder. You seem to be the type that thinks everybody's opinion is equally valid. Guess what...they're not. Try that attitude should you have a heart attack....go see what your auto-mechanic can diagnose for you. Is the newly-minted, fresh-from-the-gym sport-climber's opinion about high-altitude physiology as valid as that of, say, Dr. Thomas Hornbein? No. Eric can say whatever he pleases. It would be nice if he were better informed on certain issues so his comments might have more credibility. A couple of other things: a) true, it doesn't matter where Jesus was born, but saying he was born in Egypt demonstrates a real lack of basic knowledge of the sensitive subject he is demeaning. b) Rabbi's are not sacred. Many are the first to laugh at themselves. Quote
erik Posted August 29, 2003 Author Posted August 29, 2003 Dwayner said: b) Rabbi's are not sacred. Many are the first to laugh at themselves. and shouldnt we all take that advice. Quote
lI1|1! Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 ok my next question: why can't you wear the pants again if the guy washes them? i mean that would kill any fungus. it's not like there's going to be that much more fungus than if he did wear undies. sure it ain't a pretty thought, but like my tongues been there on a chick. so it's gotta be a *symbolic* thing, is dwayner homophobic? Quote
Necronomicon Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 lI1|1! said: ok my next question: why can't you wear the pants again if the guy washes them? i mean that would kill any fungus. it's not like there's going to be that much more fungus than if he did wear undies. W.W.J.D.? Quote
Sphinx Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 Necronomicon said: lI1|1! said: ok my next question: why can't you wear the pants again if the guy washes them? i mean that would kill any fungus. it's not like there's going to be that much more fungus than if he did wear undies. W.W.J.D.? WWJD? Does that mean Why Wash John's Dick? Quote
Crackbolter Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 That is W.W.J.N.D.? pay to pray, pay to play, pay to spray! Quote
Sphinx Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 Crackbolter said: That is W.W.J.N.D.? pay to pray, pay to play, pay to spray! Nice autosig, BTW. Chouinard would approve. Quote
JayB Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 lI1|1! said: Dwayner said: a) you don't know what you're talking about in terms of "baby Jesus", history, theology, etc. so just out of curiosity, and since this seems to be a broken record with dwayner, when can i consider myself knowledgable enough to comment on religeon, theology, baby jesus etc? how about a dwayner certification test? the test would have to be a.) standardized and b.) topical and representative of the knowledge base of individuals who are "ok" to discuss "god" on the internet. presumbably some portion of the cc.com community (besides dwayner) would have to be able to pass it (although i will leave it to dwayner decide what percentage of the cc.com population we are talking about). so how about it dwayner? come up with a test and those people here who pass get to say what they think and the rest can stfu. let's have it! When the fundamental claims being made within a text, or on the basis of the material within the text cannot be proven, are utterly inconsistent with the laws which govern the operation of the physical world, or both – it is not necessary to thoroughly acquaint oneself with the book to refute the arguments or claims made within it. There may be a dense tract several thousand pages long in which the author attempts to substantiate his claim that he has built an engine that generates more energy than it consumes, but since this is physically impossible one doesn’t need to read even a single page to dismiss it out of hand. Ditto for the billions of pages of religious arcana out there, all of which is based upon the claim that supernatural deities exist and have specific attributes. This is a unprovable claim, and any argument which presupposes or is based upon the existence of such beings can be dismissed without aquainting oneself with any of the specific sub-claims made within them. Quote
Dwayner Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Jay B concludes: "When the fundamental claims being made within a text, or on the basis of the material within the text cannot be proven, are utterly inconsistent with the laws which govern the operation of the physical world, or both – it is not necessary to thoroughly acquaint oneself with the book to refute the arguments or claims made within it." You obviously aren't very familiar with the text or the myriad ways of looking at it and the layers of meaning within. A lot of spirituality is based on faith, rather than physical evidence. One is ideational, the other phenomenological. I can't convince you that God exists, but I also know some philosophers that can make a convincing case that you don't exist. There are also quantum physicists who can tell you that we aren't even close to understanding how the universe works. So, believe what you want, Sparky....what a country! Quote
Sphinx Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 I once had a very enlightening argument with some acquaintences about religion. It showed me that when all logic is lost, those who are religious can always come back to the argument that since we cannot understand God, there is no point to logic. So arguing is futile. Their beliefs simply cannot be challenged as that is one of the tenets of their belief. Hence Dwayner always knows better. And therefore I suggest we quit posting on this thread. It's totally useless. As Dwayner says, it's all about faith. And faith and logic don't go together. A neat system for the Jesus-freaks, but I still can't understand how otherwise intelligent people can be so stupid. Oh, Dwayner, about your philosophers: in what sense would they argue that Jay doesn't exist? You mean that he's an avatar? Or would they delve into what constitutes existance? Quote
murraysovereign Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Sphinx said: ...faith and logic don't go together. A neat system for the Jesus-freaks, but I still can't understand how otherwise intelligent people can be so stupid. Actually, they're not mutually exclusive. Albert Einstein, no slouch when it came to matters of logic, was also deeply religious, and saw no conflict between the two. When asked about it, he replied that God was a supremely rational being, and created the physical universe on purely logical grounds, governed by perfectly logical laws. As a physicist, Einstein was merely trying to discern the rules by which God had constructed the Universe. He saw this as a supremely spiritual pursuit, in that he was trying to discern, ultimately, the inner workings of God's mind. And throughout his life, he retained his faith. Funny how the most brilliant scientific mind in human history could be so stupid. Quote
Dwayner Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 "Sphinx" says a few things, including: "Dwayner always knows better." Thanks for your undying loyalty. I know you may find this hard to believe, but Dwayner doesn't always know better, but this is a subject that he has given a lot of study and thought to. Unfortunately, there are clues that some of those here with nasty opinions have not gone through an equivalent process. A lot of talk, but no substance. Sphinx: "I still can't understand how otherwise intelligent people can be so stupid." Nice to see that you got it all figured out. I guess we can all pack up and go home. We now have accumulated at least 3000 years of "stupid" Jews and 2000 years of "stupid" Christians, many of them who are Nobel Prize winners, humanitarians, professors, doctors inventors, high school drop-outs, and fast-food workers etc. Sphinx: "Oh, Dwayner, about your philosophers: in what sense would they argue that Jay doesn't exist? You mean that he's an avatar? Or would they delve into what constitutes existence?" Existentialist arguments. Jay B would also receive a "B-" grade at best for his kind of superficial commentary. Sphinx: "I suggest we quit posting on this thread. It's totally useless." I agree somewhat....this discussion really doesn't belong on a climbing web-site.....on the other hand, it's hard for me to sit back and not respond to the demeaning "baby Jesus" business....especially when it originates from at least two, so-called site "moderators". For some, such jackass comments are equivalent to the "N-word", striking at their heart and soul. To the extent that maybe some people might have been made aware that such comments can be construed as DEEPLY offensive, then the present "discussion" has been worthwhile. If you think that you can reasonably discuss the arguments pro and con for the existence of God, and so forth....it's a waste of time....especially with this audience and this site. I don't come here for religious discussions either. - Dwayner Quote
lI1|1! Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Dwayner sez: ...especially with this audience and site. Quote
JayB Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 murraysovereign said: Sphinx said: ...faith and logic don't go together. A neat system for the Jesus-freaks, but I still can't understand how otherwise intelligent people can be so stupid. Actually, they're not mutually exclusive. Albert Einstein, no slouch when it came to matters of logic, was also deeply religious, and saw no conflict between the two. When asked about it, he replied that God was a supremely rational being, and created the physical universe on purely logical grounds, governed by perfectly logical laws. As a physicist, Einstein was merely trying to discern the rules by which God had constructed the Universe. He saw this as a supremely spiritual pursuit, in that he was trying to discern, ultimately, the inner workings of God's mind. And throughout his life, he retained his faith. Funny how the most brilliant scientific mind in human history could be so stupid. The beliefs you outlined bear a much closer resemblance to Newton's theology than Einsteins. Newton conceived of God, in part, as an active intelligence who both consciously designed and continuously ordered the universe. As far as Einstein is concerned, he said "My God is the God of Spinoza" meaning a being that played no active role in either the design or the ordering of the universe. If you read his "Ideas and Opinions," and other works, it is clear that he derived a profound sense of spiritual satisfaction from pondering the order of the universe, but found formal religion and anthropomorphic conceptions of a supreme being both primitive and absurd. His Words: "Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests. The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God. The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates. Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people. " Quote
JayB Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Jay B would also receive a "B-" grade at best for his kind of superficial commentary. Nothing superficial about my commentary, seeing as it addresses the central basis of all organized religion, i.e. the existence of an aphysical supreme being, and the inherent impossibility of ever proving (or disproving) the existence of such a creature. Belief in the absence of factual evidence seems to be one of your strong points, a belief in the importance of factual evidence is one of mine. To each his own. Quote
Sphinx Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Jay, that was one of the best posts I've seen on this board, ever. Too bad I'm not as articulate as Einstein; I share the beliefs that he describes above. Thanks. Quote
EWolfe Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Taoist take: Simple words find truth many words confuse. Stingsay: Men go crazy in congregations They only get better one by one. Quote
Figger_Eight Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 It's happened before on this site, and it'll happen again I imagine. If you're going to flippantly belittle an idea that others hold sacred (whether it be bolting, kids, dogs, or religious icons) you're gonna get called out. If you get all up in arms and defensive about it - you're the one who's being a whiner. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it right back. Spray on fools. Quote
murraysovereign Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Sorry, Jay, but I don't see how this refutes my observation that Einstein was able to reconcile his scientific pursuits with his religious faith. Where I have stated that Einstein percieved his studies as attempting to discern the logical workings of the mind of God, you quote Einstein describing the effort to arrive at "but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world". When asked how he was so sure that the universe was ordered in a logical way, and could be understood through the rigourous application of scientific logic, he replied that the universe had to be ordered thusly, because "God doesn't play at dice." In other words - God, being supremely logical, would not have thrown the universe together randomly. You are correct in stating that he had little time for most manifestations of structured, organised religion, and he disagreed with the conception of God as being directly involved in the day-to-day happenings of the world. He would have scoffed at any suggestion that the current forest fires in BC had anything to do with purposeful Divine Intervention, or that God in any way contributed to some college athlete scoring the winning touchdown in the big game. The notion of praying to God for assistance in any form would have struck him as vain and egocentric, but that is not to say that he dismissed religious beliefs out of hand, and certainly he did not hold that religious faith and principles of logic were irreconcilable, which was the argument of Sphinx's that I was addressing. I find it curious that Sphinx is so impressed by Einstein's eloquence, since what he is so eloquently stating - among other things - is that religious faith is not only compatible with scientific study, but possibly even essential to it: "What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!" Quote
Sphinx Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 I do not believe in any higher being. I was referring to Eistein's view of organized religion in my previous post, sorry if I was unclear. I don't believe in God because I see no reason to. Unless his existance can be proved, He is no different from Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Or am I missing something? How is He different from these 'myths'? Quote
Figger_Eight Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 There is a big difference between just believing in a higher power than subscribing to organized religion. Quote
murraysovereign Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Figger_Eight said: There is a big difference between just believing in a higher power than subscribing to organized religion. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.