Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-27-2018, 08:33 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
It's too early in the morning to deal with so many mis-defined words used to describe an idea that doesn't have a shred of evidence supporting it.
  #52  
Old 04-27-2018, 09:14 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
So why must "God" be defined in some manner that, for example, makes no sense to me? Who decides what constitutes "God" anyway? Who died and made them boss?
Go ahead and define God as Life if that makes sense to you. But you will be unable to have a meaningful conversation with the rest of society that has a different (although not completely consistent) definition.

Who decides what constitutes "Love" or "Femur" or "Wankel Rotary Engine" anyway? As it turns out, most people are OK with whatever Mr Webster says.
  #53  
Old 04-27-2018, 09:31 AM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,829
I can't see how the idea is anything other than complete gibberish. I'm glad the Wankel analogy has some traction, it makes just as much sense.
  #54  
Old 04-27-2018, 10:00 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
It's too early in the morning to deal with so many mis-defined words used to describe an idea that doesn't have a shred of evidence supporting it.
Behold, I have succeeded in turning lead into gold!
That is very good, Percy, except, the thing about gold is, well, it's gold. What you appear to have created here is “green”.
  #55  
Old 04-27-2018, 10:35 AM
Some Call Me... Tim Some Call Me... Tim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
When Walsh says


Walsh is full of it. The universe existed long before life did, and there might be parts of it that life has never seen.
However as religious thought goes, it is pretty harmless.

But life requires sex, so if you define God as sex you would get a lot more attendance at church. And maybe more interesting religious tracts.
Life existed long before sex did, and there is life that has no sexual ancestors.
  #56  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:02 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my God

Go ahead with your own God, leave me alone


Witty!
  #57  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:57 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I wouldn't go so far as "gigantic steaming pile" but yes, it is the opinion of the author of the books, Conversations With God. I quite like his approach to religious thought
Many years ago, I read Walsch's first Conversations with God book, or at least tried to—I don't remember whether I made it all the way through, and I was left with absolutely no desire to read any of his other books.

My impression, near as I can remember, was that some of the things he said when he was speaking for and about himself, in his own voice, might actually have been worth reading, and I wished he had just stuck with that. But when he claimed to speak for God, and went all "God said this to me"—the "God" he presented wasn't one that I or any other traditional theist (Christian, Jew, Muslim) would recognize, and from their perspective, what he was doing might be considered blasphemy, idolatry (making up his own god to worship), or false prophecy (claiming to speak for God).
  #58  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:59 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Behold, I have succeeded in turning lead into gold!
That is very good, Percy, except, the thing about gold is, well, it's gold. What you appear to have created here is “green”.
"In Green we trust!"
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #59  
Old 04-27-2018, 01:32 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Many years ago, I read Walsch's first Conversations with God book, or at least tried to—I don't remember whether I made it all the way through, and I was left with absolutely no desire to read any of his other books.



My impression, near as I can remember, was that some of the things he said when he was speaking for and about himself, in his own voice, might actually have been worth reading, and I wished he had just stuck with that. But when he claimed to speak for God, and went all "God said this to me"—the "God" he presented wasn't one that I or any other traditional theist (Christian, Jew, Muslim) would recognize, and from their perspective, what he was doing might be considered blasphemy, idolatry (making up his own god to worship), or false prophecy (claiming to speak for God).

See, that's the thing. Any "word of God" written anywhere was filtered through a human being at some point. Why shouldn't he be allowed to give his take on that process was what I was thinking about at the time. I see where you're coming from, and I did have my misgivings reading some of his conversations, but the upshot of it all—God being a much more reasonable being than we give Him credit for—gave me reason to believe Walsch was on to something here. Or on something, take your pick.
  #60  
Old 04-27-2018, 01:40 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
See, that's the thing. Any "word of God" written anywhere was filtered through a human being at some point.
That's an awful large assumption you are asking us to swallow, because I think the default position is that any "word of God" written anywhere originated with a human being at some point, because that is where all the evidence points to so far.
  #61  
Old 04-27-2018, 03:16 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That's an awful large assumption you are asking us to swallow, because I think the default position is that any "word of God" written anywhere originated with a human being at some point, because that is where all the evidence points to so far.


Well there you go then. So why should one human's story be any more important or believable than any other human's story? If Paul could write letters or Matthew write a gospel, why can't I? Or you? Something to consider.
  #62  
Old 04-27-2018, 03:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Well there you go then. So why should one human's story be any more important or believable than any other human's story? If Paul could write letters or Matthew write a gospel, why can't I? Or you? Something to consider.
The main difference is that, while you would think of all such writings as equally valid, I would see all such efforts as equally invalid.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 04-27-2018 at 03:31 PM.
  #63  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:14 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Well there you go then. So why should one human's story be any more important or believable than any other human's story? If Paul could write letters or Matthew write a gospel, why can't I? Or you? Something to consider.
So, L Ron Hubbard writing on Scientology, David Koresh writing on Branch Davidians, Fred Felps writing on Westboro Baptists Church, Joseph Smith on Mormonism... All equally believable to Paul, Matthew, Buddha, Mohammad, etc...?

If not, how do you discriminate between them?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #64  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:15 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The main difference is that, while you would think of all such writings as equally valid, I would see all such efforts as equally invalid.

Fair enough. But if there's a particular story that works for you, that gets you through the dark night, surely that can't be a bad thing. That's essentially how I view all religions: stories to help get us through the dark night. I have no interest I heaven or hell or even guilt; the only thing that matters is how I live my life right now. If I'm kind to others, things tend to go better for me. The rest is details.
  #65  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:21 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
So, L Ron Hubbard writing on Scientology, David Koresh writing on Branch Davidians, Fred Felps writing on Westboro Baptists Church, Joseph Smith on Mormonism... All equally believable to Paul, Matthew, Buddha, Mohammad, etc...?

If not, how do you discriminate between them?
Ron Hubbard had a viable business plan and a cool auditing machine.
  #66  
Old 04-27-2018, 05:37 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
So, L Ron Hubbard writing on Scientology, David Koresh writing on Branch Davidians, Fred Felps writing on Westboro Baptists Church, Joseph Smith on Mormonism... All equally believable to Paul, Matthew, Buddha, Mohammad, etc...?



If not, how do you discriminate between them?

I wouldn't call them all believable or valid, no. As with any other religious writing, I'd have to look at the message and the actions and see if I agree with the message being broadcast. There are some people for example who see Donald Trump as the Saviour of the World; I am not one of these people, because I do not see goodness in what he preaches nor what he practices. Same with David Koresh or Jim Jones or many other cult leaders, yet there are those who live and breathe the word of their particular saviour. That's why religion is a very powerful and potentially very dangerous force in the universe. And whether or not God exists, religions certainly do.
  #67  
Old 04-27-2018, 08:10 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Ron Hubbard had a viable business plan and a cool auditing machine.
Have you ever read NED for OTs? Toward the end of his life, the stuff started breaking down. Really, Incident II has all kinds of logical problems with it – Scientology doctrine ran afoul of Science because Hubbard was a pretty shit Sci-Fi writer. If Niven or Herbert or Ellison or even Heinlein had started a religion, we might have something really interesting and possibly worthwhile, but instead we have zombie clams.
  #68  
Old 04-27-2018, 08:38 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I wouldn't call them all believable or valid, no. As with any other religious writing, I'd have to look at the message and the actions and see if I agree with the message being broadcast. There are some people for example who see Donald Trump as the Saviour of the World; I am not one of these people, because I do not see goodness in what he preaches nor what he practices. Same with David Koresh or Jim Jones or many other cult leaders, yet there are those who live and breathe the word of their particular saviour. That's why religion is a very powerful and potentially very dangerous force in the universe. And whether or not God exists, religions certainly do.
People who claim that there is a being that they call God are lying, pure and simple. (Or they're mentally incompetent. One or the other.) They don't believe there's a being that they call God. They may pretend (for whatever purpose) to believe it, but there is no basis (not "no rational basis", just no basis) for belief.
  #69  
Old 04-27-2018, 08:55 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
People who claim that there is a being that they call God are lying, pure and simple. (Or they're mentally incompetent. One or the other.) They don't believe there's a being that they call God. They may pretend (for whatever purpose) to believe it, but there is no basis (not "no rational basis", just no basis) for belief.

Again, it depends how you define God. If I define God as Life itself, then your darn tootin' there's a rational basis for my belief in God. As far as the Invisible Man in the Sky, who'll torture you for all eternity if you break one of his rules (because he loves you), then naw, I don't believe in that.

On a side note, I've never understood why we call RC priests "Father," since that's the one thing they're actually prohibited from becoming.
  #70  
Old 04-27-2018, 09:12 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Again, it depends how you define God. If I define God as Life itself, then your darn tootin' there's a rational basis for my belief in God.
There is no “life”. We are all just avatars in a simulation of some sort. Hell, you might not even be real, AFAICT.
  #71  
Old 04-27-2018, 09:50 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Again, it depends how you define God. If I define God as Life itself, then your darn tootin' there's a rational basis for my belief in God.
Are you really serious about that idea, or are you just jerking us around? Because it is soooooooo silly.

If I define Bigfoot as the grey squirrel, then there's a rational basis for my belief in Bigfoot.

If I define FTL travel as Girl Scout Thin Mints, then there's a rational basis for my belief in FTL travel.

If I define the tooth fairy as a shamisen plectrum, then there's a rational basis for my belief in the tooth fairy.

If I define the invisible pink unicorn as aluminum foil, then there's a rational basis for my belief in the invisible pink unicorn.
  #72  
Old 04-27-2018, 10:08 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
There is no “life”. We are all just avatars in a simulation of some sort. Hell, you might not even be real, AFAICT.

We might be a bunch of bald naked people in amniotic juice pods where the machines can use our brains to power their world.
  #73  
Old 04-27-2018, 10:19 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Are you really serious about that idea, or are you just jerking us around? Because it is soooooooo silly.

If I define Bigfoot as the grey squirrel, then there's a rational basis for my belief in Bigfoot.

If I define FTL travel as Girl Scout Thin Mints, then there's a rational basis for my belief in FTL travel.

If I define the tooth fairy as a shamisen plectrum, then there's a rational basis for my belief in the tooth fairy.

If I define the invisible pink unicorn as aluminum foil, then there's a rational basis for my belief in the invisible pink unicorn.

Yeah, I suppose so. But the difference is, God IS defined in part of the bible as Love, and I see a strong correlation personally between Love and Life. I also see a correlation between God and Good, intentional or not, so I've always thought of being more like God as synonymous With being good. Certainly not the wipe out the Egyptian army kind of good, of course. So in short, nope, not meaning to yank your chain. Just sharing a personal word association.
  #74  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:41 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,074
I see a strong correlation between Life and Lunch, and while you may love what you dine on, what you dine on probably had very different feelings about you.

As for god being good, it sure fucks people up in disturbing ways. And it seems to be indiscriminate, fucking up genuinely nice people about as much as it does skanks. It is either wholly indifferent or a sadistic sociopath.
  #75  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:52 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Yeah, I suppose so. But the difference is, God IS defined in part of the bible as Love,
God is eating ass!
  #76  
Old 04-28-2018, 12:20 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I see a strong correlation between Life and Lunch, and while you may love what you dine on, what you dine on probably had very different feelings about you.

As for god being good, it sure fucks people up in disturbing ways. And it seems to be indiscriminate, fucking up genuinely nice people about as much as it does skanks. It is either wholly indifferent or a sadistic sociopath.


Your mileage may vary. Apparently.
  #77  
Old 04-28-2018, 12:23 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Your mileage may vary. Apparently.
It's a little hard to square "God is Love" with "childhood leukemia."
  #78  
Old 04-28-2018, 01:10 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
It's a little hard to square "God is Love" with "childhood leukemia."


True enough. I don't think life is meant to be lived without suffering and tribulation, however. Some of us have more than our fair share.
  #79  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:24 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post
Life existed long before sex did, and there is life that has no sexual ancestors.
You've never watched amoeba porn then, have you?
I never mentioned two gender sex. Don't be a prude, man.
  #80  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:29 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Have you ever read NED for OTs? Toward the end of his life, the stuff started breaking down. Really, Incident II has all kinds of logical problems with it – Scientology doctrine ran afoul of Science because Hubbard was a pretty shit Sci-Fi writer. If Niven or Herbert or Ellison or even Heinlein had started a religion, we might have something really interesting and possibly worthwhile, but instead we have zombie clams.
You should read Final Blackout some day. Hubbard's AnLab scores in the early '40s were pretty high, and he wrote some good stuff for Unknown also.
And lots of shit - he was a hack writer, better than most. Better than very early Silverberg and Ellison for two.

Can't blame him for figuring out taking the rubes would pay better than the pulps.

ETA: And he never was a hard science fiction writer.

Last edited by Voyager; 04-28-2018 at 02:30 AM.
  #81  
Old 04-28-2018, 02:31 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
It's too early in the morning to deal with so many mis-defined words used to describe an idea that doesn't have a shred of evidence supporting it.
You give it too much credit. I don't see how it could have evidence to support it. The idea is not well-defined enough.
  #82  
Old 04-28-2018, 06:21 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,891
I see a connection between Satan and satin and steer clear of The Devil Fabric.

But at least we've established that you assume only one specific God, which designed the universe with modern English word forms in mind.
  #83  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:04 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I wouldn't call them all believable or valid, no. As with any other religious writing, I'd have to look at the message and the actions and see if I agree with the message being broadcast. There are some people for example who see Donald Trump as the Saviour of the World; I am not one of these people, because I do not see goodness in what he preaches nor what he practices. Same with David Koresh or Jim Jones or many other cult leaders, yet there are those who live and breathe the word of their particular saviour. That's why religion is a very powerful and potentially very dangerous force in the universe. And whether or not God exists, religions certainly do.
My point was that they all, without exception, redefined the term "God" for their own means and ends. What's different about the way you are redefining "God" by calling it "Life"? Can you not see that once you've convinced enough people of your point of view, it's a short walk to start establishing parameters of how to honor "Life" by how one lives and behaves? I know you wouldn't manipulate this idea to something nefarious, but plenty of others might, and have done exactly that throughout history and present.

Also, re-read the definition of deepity, as posted earlier. It really should persuade anyone interested in logic and reason to avoid the type fatuous arguments you're (unintentionally?) promoting.
  #84  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:27 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,880
What I gleaned from a quick scan of the article is that if you completely redefine the words “God” and “Life” you can make them interchangeable.

But you could probably do that with any two words.
  #85  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:35 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Perhaps your definition of God needs revisiting. Or your definition of Life.
Neither.
  #86  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:02 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Neither.
I feel like I need to redefine the words, "agree with Clothahump".
  #87  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:05 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Perhaps your definition of God needs revisiting. Or your definition of Life.
I just check several dictionaries, and it seems that "God" and "Life" still aren't synonyms...unless of course you have evidence that "God" was once the name of a board game, breakfast cereal or magazine.
  #88  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:14 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I just check several dictionaries, and it seems that "God" and "Life" still aren't synonyms...unless of course you have evidence that "God" was once the name of a board game, breakfast cereal or magazine.
At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items.
  #89  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:17 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
My point was that they all, without exception, redefined the term "God" for their own means and ends. What's different about the way you are redefining "God" by calling it "Life"? Can you not see that once you've convinced enough people of your point of view, it's a short walk to start establishing parameters of how to honor "Life" by how one lives and behaves? I know you wouldn't manipulate this idea to something nefarious, but plenty of others might, and have done exactly that throughout history and present.



Also, re-read the definition of deepity, as posted earlier. It really should persuade anyone interested in logic and reason to avoid the type fatuous arguments you're (unintentionally?) promoting.


I like the definition of "deepity," although I don't think that's what I'm promoting. I think, based on the numerous threads on the same subject, that the concept of God is problematic for a great number of people. So easy to disbelieve in. Walsch's description got me thinking however, over ten years ago, and the shoe still fits so I'm wearing it. I have no problem with redefining God, since I don't think He or She was all that well-defined to begin with.
  #90  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:18 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items.
At one time I could ride a public bus from March AFB to downtown Los Angeles for only a $1.50.
  #91  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:18 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I just check several dictionaries, and it seems that "God" and "Life" still aren't synonyms...unless of course you have evidence that "God" was once the name of a board game, breakfast cereal or magazine.

That's your problem: you're attempting to find a truth about the universe using a dictionary. This requires some deeper thinking.
  #92  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:21 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
What I gleaned from a quick scan of the article is that if you completely redefine the words “God” and “Life” you can make them interchangeable.



But you could probably do that with any two words.


True, on a purely semantic level. But what Walsch is proposing is not simply semantics, I don't think. If you think about what life does, what its purpose is, there is much more to contemplate. No one doubts the existence of life either.
  #93  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:25 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
I like the definition of "deepity," although I don't think that's what I'm promoting. I think, based on the numerous threads on the same subject, that the concept of God is problematic for a great number of people. So easy to disbelieve in. Walsch's description got me thinking however, over ten years ago, and the shoe still fits so I'm wearing it. I have no problem with redefining God, since I don't think He or She was all that well-defined to begin with.
Okay, here's an immediate problem that I can see: If you redefine "God" as "Life", any potential issues with respect to a woman't right to abortion? Perhaps not for you, but for those who take this concept of "God is Life" a little too seriously.
  #94  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:26 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
That's your problem: you're attempting to find a truth about the universe using a dictionary. This requires some deeper thinking.
Your thinking is rather wide, but under no circumstances would I call it "deep".
  #95  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:30 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,089
There are plenty of things in the Universe that don't depend on life, including some that are very beautiful and complex. And indeed, so far as we know, for most of the Universe's history, there was no life at all.
  #96  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:31 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
At one time I could ride a public bus from March AFB to downtown Los Angeles for only a $1.50.
How much is it now?
  #97  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:36 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
How much is it now?
Who gives a shit? It has about as much to do with the topic of this thread as your little bon mot "At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items."
  #98  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:41 AM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Who gives a shit? It has about as much to do with the topic of this thread as your little bon mot "At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items."
My point exactly, though it is apparent you still missed it. Hint look up "philosophical thought experiment"

Last edited by kanicbird; 04-28-2018 at 10:44 AM.
  #99  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:43 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
Again, it depends how you define God. If I define God as Life itself, then your darn tootin' there's a rational basis for my belief in God.
If you define God as Life itself, then at best you might(if you don't think about the consequences too deeply) establish some sort of internal consistency in your mind..but rationality has nothing to do with it.
Unless you have your own private definition of "rational", of course.
  #100  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:44 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items.
Does it ever bother you at all that religious/theistic thought hasn't had an original idea in centuries (if not millenia), yet is completely shameless in plagiarizing & co-opting scientific concepts and discoveries without doing the hard work required to show why all of a sudden, 'God=Life=Love=Pie'?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017