They are different things, as has been mentioned. Say you have a plate on a stick, the kind jugglers use, and give it a spin. The plate will eventually fall - which way will it fall. There is basically no way of determining this. I’ve never read deeply into the theory, but I think there are so many variables, all of which can affect the result based on things beyond our ability to measure, that we can’t tell. This has nothing to do with quantum level effects. I suppose that if you spun the plate starting at a carefully regulated angle at a carefully regulated speed, in a vacuum so no wind, with friction measured, you might be able to use standard laws to find out the answer.
I’m glad you agree about the inheritance of mental traits. So, traits do we get from our pre-birth soul, for want of a better word?
Yes, the rather dubious article says “a lot of reasearch” and “many studies,” but it doesn’t actually cite them. Do you by any chance have links to these important studies?
Best I can tell, this guy was already born when he had the experience. First of all, not many people remember anything being that young, let alone anything in that much detail. Second, I might be able to believe sensations in utero, since at a certain point the brain is working. I’d need some good evidence, but a pre-birth rather than a pre-conception memory doesn’t violate any physical laws but doesn’t support your point. Third, this guy was only 3 when he saw the picture of the earth from space (from Apollo 8, Dec. 68. See, I am old.) I don’t buy that he could explicitly remember this dream. He might have had a deja vu experience. He might be projecting something back now. He certainly could be visualizing the story his parents told him as if it were true. When my daughter was born, only 16 years later, we couldn’t go into the nursery, but the nurse brought her out to us. I don’t think things were that different in 1965. Why risk adults infecting all those kids?
So I don’t buy it, and you wouldn’t either if you thought logically about it instead of wanting to believe.
No I’m not. I’m guessing that an unjust uncaring god would not want progressive generations to enjoy a better quality of life and to see through evidence that their efforts and sacrifice pay off for future generations. Giving no consideration to what may or may not happen after physical death which negates whether our physical lifespan is a blip or not.
No big deal but it is Cosmos with that second S. Thats a common mistake on the boards for some reason.
It’s interesting that you’d see justice that way. Perhaps I’m naive but I see it as getting people to bear the responsibility of their choices and actions. You might even forgive them of the act but that doesn’t mean consequences vanish along with blame.
IMO the things you mention have a lot to do with what we label as love, but the spiritual quest is to sift what we call love , lust, affirmation, security etc. from a more profound concept of love like the one described in 1 Cor 13.
We may not control how we feel about things at any given moment but we do choose {or think we can} how to respond to that feeling.
Did I ever tell you that I neither believe nor disbelieve what people say to me, I just try to fit it into the life experiences I have had, sometimes it fits and sometimes not.
Even though your blind guesses about God’s nature are as valid as anyone elses’, the topic of this thread is actually “What would an unloving, unjust, unfair God be like?”
Any thoughts on the matter?
Oh, that isn’t how I view the concept of “justice,” that’s how I view others’ interpretation of it. IMO, the definition of justice fits fairly close to yours. Unfortunately, since it is (as I’ve mentioned) such a subjective concept, what gets carried out is often revenge. I believe justice is what we’re supposed to have here; equal consideration and protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, income, etc. And I think that’s biased very strongly when religion is allowed to be a factor, because religious beliefs aren’t universal, and many are going to disagree with that religion’s interpretation.
Sure, but at the same time, with labels come judgment. Lust is considered evil. Why? It’s a perfectly natural reaction, and it’s what gets us to reproduce, fercryinoutloud. People are made to feel ashamed for something over which they have no control (The feeling, not the actions. People should be able to control their own actions)! It isn’t “evil” or wrong to experience lust. And sex, in and of itself, is not wrong, either. I’m sorry, but we’re never going to contain it to reproduction; we just aren’t built that way. And seeking security isn’t wrong or evil either; that too is hardwired in. Love is a trick our brains play on us to get us to reproduce and care for our young. Does that mean that just because I’m aware of that, I’m going to close myself off from it? Of course not. But I’m not going to pretend it’s “noble” either.
There are those who would insist that I must not have ever experienced real love because I am able to view it clinically. To them I would respond: road apples. Just because I feel something doesn’t mean I have to remain ignorant of the facts to fully experience that feeling.
Agenda-pushing is a different question than agenda-cherry-picking, I’d think; we’re talking about whether they’re fooling themselves, not whether they’re fooling other people.
That said, of course non-believers can cherry-pick reality and fool themselves about reality; there are an infinite variety of ways to be wrong after all. Statistaclly speaking there’s probably nonbelievers out there who think that the earth is flat, that the moon landing and/or the holocaust didn’t happen, or that Bush is a noble and good leader as our president.
That said, and I could be deluding myself about this, but I don’t think you have to screen out too much reality to sustain a belief in the absence of gods.