NOMA - Is this the answer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I will return to the first in the series of posts to show by qouting the POPE that Gould could have been a bit more sentential when displacing the creationist insistance in this instance for I have come to consider Steve's Philosophy flawed but I like what he says about compartive zoology in the name of Aggasiz. I do not think the loss of purpose is "cultural". 9-11 proved otherwise to me. Gould wrote a few pages on this as well.

​

i AM Not so sure thaT there is as much magic in Egpyt than the prof had led us to believe for I can still not discount Jerimiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LOrd. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

​

and

​

"I have heard what the profets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed."

​

Concerning the Fox Natl geo special last nite and further from my Grandfather's speech at the 1965 Honors Convocation SUNY fredonia :

​

"As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of his universe underwent radical changes.

​

Some humanists have charged that science has dealt mankind four serious body blows:
1)Galileo removed man from the center of the universem,
2)Newton made God unnecessary,
3)Darwin thrust man back into the animal kingdom, and
4)Freud put him at the mercy of his subconscious.

​

These blows to man's solar plexus are held to explain modern man's self-contempt and justify his giving up will and responsibility. We are told that "scientifically speaking" man is altogether a conditioned and helpless being.

​

The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...This may all be very well for certain scientific workers, but, to most men, the abdication of purpose seems to equate with a denial of life within."

​

If I am still not clear read two more verses "The profet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord...

​

but if resistence still can not find the handle to the place spaced consider that Stan continued to say..."parentheticaly, since scientists are also men, we have a second super-imposed spectrum" which again may not be mere magic if for instance fundamental series explain energy absorption in the former space attribuited to electrons.

---

Man makes his own purpose. This is one of the most wonderous times to be alive.It is only the overly religious which have to define the purpose of thier lives as be nothing more than giving praise to some mythical being. That is a sad life and proves what was said in my thread "Why People want to believe there is a god".

Originally posted by Brad McFall:My grandfather was agnostic to atheisitic so are you saying that a generation does not exist??Irrelevant. Since atheism and agnosticism are not cohesive belief systems with any common rites, rituals, or doctrine what one atheist or agnostic may do or believe is totally unrelated to others may do. This is not the same with theists, though, since they do have common beliefs in this regard. I can only conclude that you would have to agree with ICR that evolutionists are religious to "overly" religious which is something I never thought.Not only do you not know that evolution is, but apparently what religion is either.Religion:

​

1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destinyThere is nothing supernatural, or divine, about evolution.GOuld was correct to criticize the cone of diversity in science and my grandfather while not this religious as far as I know kept his teaching of "evolution" well within the clearly communicated and understood version of either side.Knowing creationists this is either a misquote or quoting out of context.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006: Have you known atheism or agnosticism personally? I am an ATHEIST, and yet I have common beliefs with other ahteists. We do have a doctrine which is simply put - We do not Believe that God exists. Sounds like a doctrine to me. Not all religions have rituals to my knowledge, but I would have to do some reaserach.

​

Anyways, see you later
[/QUOTE]I'm a Secular Humanist Agnostic.
Still irrelevant. It is not an official system of beliefs. Do you have a "non"holy book where the doctrine is written down on how not to believe? Do you take an oath or pledge to not believe? Do you meet on your "non"holy day and praise Darwin? Yes, all religions have rituals. It is what the religious ceremonies are.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
RELIGION:

​

religion, piety, conscientiousness, scrupulousness,

​

1. belief in a dicing or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe

​

2. expression in this belief in conduct or ritual - DOES NOT SAY BOTH, ATHEIST CAN ACT OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE

​

As long as we act out what we believe we are acting out our own religion. We make our own religions. There is no one way. There are many ways. Of course this answer is in the Magesterium of Religion.

​

Thanks.

​

Oh by the way the definition was taken out of Webster's unabridged dictionary.

​

See you later.

​

---

That dictionary also once defined atheists as being evil as well. BTW, #2 is refering to #1.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Anne,

​

what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.

​

This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

---

All morality is subjective. It is dependant on wheither it is that of a society or an individual. Atheists and agnostics are just more honest about where they get their morality from.BTW, much of what you say comes out as being disjointed and confusing like this;There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.What does that mean?[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006: belief - in theology, FAITH, or a FIRM PERSUATION of the truths of a religion.Not all beliefs are religious in nature.I have a question, can I see some sources that state that atheism and agnosticsm are not religions? All my life, I was told these are religious beliefs. Never have researched it that much.I had shown earlier why they aren't religious beliefs. A religion is a belief system which is centred around the belief in a supernatural power or deity. Atheists and agnostics have no such thing.When did the Webster's dictionary define an atheist as being evil? Very interested in finding that one out.

​

Where Did We Get Our Definition For 'Atheist'? Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht (Reply) (7-00)Even Merriam-Webster's Tenth Collegiate Dictionary has, as a synonym for atheism, the word wickedness. To be fair, they list this definition as archaic; however, its very existence speaks volumes about the public's attitude toward atheists. Many people throughout history have used the word atheist to insult and degrade those people they do not like.

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006: I would agree with atheist and agnostics in being more honest about where they get their morals from. I am an atheist, but to give the other side a fair consideration, are there not others from the other side who are honest about where their morals come from?No, since they are claiming that they had received their morality from a mythical being. In other words they are basing their morality on fear of what their deity may do to them if they don't obey its commands. Atheists and agnostics, on the otherhand, base their morality on reason and that it is just the right thing to do.What is your opinion on atheism/agnostiscm [boy I really need to learn how to spell these words] as being classified as religions?It is nonsense and only an attempt to drag them down with theists. I.E. "Well if it is only a belief in a fairy tale than so is yours"

Originally posted by Brad McFall:wOOW this is an awfully strong third period. Are you sure you can mean this? I think Amorality is subjective but there are some objects in ethics that no matter what calculs text one learned from ought be aboslute even if by law they were or are not. I hope you are part of the latter.All morality is subjective even on the scale of a culture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Would you mind giving another synonm of "scale of culture". I said OK to your notion @ "big picture" but if one was programming GIS for instance this would be the whole bottom line and yet if you leave the phrase such I will not know how to read any intent(for instance not my own)for molecular biology since this COULD be a ref to inter alia "molecular mechanics" but the size of a replicator would I my own notion NOT be objective to changing criticism of "group selection" on the notion of additive variance into the additivity defintion. I would find with homology rather a MORE formal and less empric consequence than I have begun to specify as to the implementation of computer assisted exploratory data analsyis still a part of this "culture" but likely not on the "scale". IE still my speculation does not exist but could be taught.

---

I had said "on the scale of A culture".
As for the rest. ?????[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Oh, yes of course I understand THAT. Peace out.

​

---

I wish I could say the same for most of your postings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
It is really amazing how childish SOME not all of religious activists can be.

​

So question, becuase I am trying to at least partially understand the other side, is it their own personal fears that drive their relationship with their mytical gods. It is their own fears of non-acceptance that they have to think that there is a God who loves them? Why?

​

---

Read the passage in my thread "Why People Want To Believe There Is A God" again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
What do you think of Richard Boyd the Philosopher of Cornell. He is as "childish' as it gets. After my two illegit kids he STILL lied or was childish to me. That is more relativism than any stomach can stomach. He is a marXist.

​

I did not either way get in the way. But my carreir was trashed so that the likes of his could remain. That is too much to ask a high school student to be the freshman thereof etc.

​

Sorry all things academic are not always turning out the way one becamne one.

---

WTF are you talking about? Is this intentional? Are you by-polar?

Originally posted by gene90:I almost agree completely with his final sentence except I believe that a rational mind *could* have absolute confidence in the existance of a God or gods if that mind had a witness or beheld a manifestation (IE, if a god is real and proved its existance)And what would constitute credible, verifible, or unbiased prove of this and still be considered rational?However neither luxury is possible for an atheist, therefore I agree to the extent that no rational mind can take up strong atheism.Unlike you they can go by empirical evidence. All you can claim is your so-called "spirit witness". I know which one I would concider to be more rational.Fortunately, I am not held accountible for your decisions. If we were held accountible for everyone, nobody would go.Accountability is irrelevant since everyone gets into heaven if your god's love has any real meaning or no one does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

​

That may or may not be true. I suspect that may be the case but I'm hesitant to announce agreement. Not when there are websites like http://www.fixedearth.com .

​

People will believe in the craziest things.

​

I agree. I don't think people should have to believe in any deities just because they need them to make the numbers fit because the violates the concept of free will. There is also a very, very bad historical precedent.

---

Free will is not as free as we would like to make ourselves believe it is. We are still ruled by many of our instincts. As I've stated before EVERYTHING we do is to prove our fitness to reproduce to the opposite sex. Sex is everything. To deny this is to deny one's humanity as well.Put in UBB endquote code - Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-05-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:That's not necessarily true. Vows of celibacy and even instances of self-castration show this is not the case.People also comit suicide as well. Self-hatred can be a strong emotion as well. They do the population a favor by taking themselves out of the gene pool. Though, I don't know how much about these vows of celibacy actually work considering recent events which have come to light. The Church can't hide too much nowadays and get away with it like to use to. I've heard of children who would tell on their priest and the child would be the one who got in trouble and punished.Also, it seems to me that the notion of not being able to keep one's pants on being the definition of humanity is a less-than-noble outlook on the world. Surely you could think up something more pc?Like it or not that is what makes us what we are. Political correctness is for fools, IMO. The motivation for all we do is basically just to impress the opposite sex.