Priests and their obsession with Status and Wealth

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think "encouraged" is indeed the wrong word. What the Bible does is it "expects" slavery. That is to say that it never really gets into saying slavery is either a good or bad thing, but gets into how to treat your slaves well.

In other words this document which you take to be a core moral precept is a document which takes slavery as pretty much a given, and gives no suggestions that it should be otherwise. Just like if you read a cookery book it does not spend a lot of time arguing as to why cooking food is a good thing. It takes it as a given that cooking food is the good and right thing to be doing, and it tells you how to do it well.

These days we recognise slavery as a bad thing in our country, which puts us morally AHEAD of your supposed eternally morally god. Because morals are a constantly changing and evolving thing and the idea they are fixed, objective, and external to us is as dangerous as it is entirely and completely unsubstantiated.

You seem to think morals somehow "exist" separate to our subjective reality. That they are some magical thing on their own. There is no evidence forthcoming, least of all from you, that this is the case.

You keep using this word "proof" without seemingly knowing what it means or without seemingly noticing when people explain to you why it is the worst word to be using as I did in an earlier post.

What we have is a preponderance of evidence. In science we do not really "prove" anything as 100% true. What we do is find Theories which are best supported by the evidence available to us, and shelve until later and Theories that are not.

That human beings evolved from earlier life is heavily evidenced, which is likely one of the reasons you ignored my invitation to discuss evolution the thread related to evolution. I know quite a lot of that evidence and could discuss it with you at length. I would be somewhere in the top 4 posters on this forum in that regard at a guess. I can think of three who seem to know more than I.

The evidence that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent had a hand in our creation however is at this time ZERO to my knowledge. I have asked people for that evidence. I have asked YOU for that evidence. And so far the sum total of the evidence offered is Zilich. Nichts. Nadda. Bugger all. Diddly Squat. Nothing. Nought.

You really do seem to think assertion is evidence.

This is typical of a response from an Atheist without attacking the poster.

Sounds like you've made up your mind before you asked any questions about a diety.

As an agnostic pagan I believe in evolution but my trust with science is slightly diluted in the last few years.
It's easy to debunk it at times, especially in the plant Kingdom the benefits of hybridised plant's for consumption, manipulating nature has horrific outcomes.

I don't believe in the Abrahamic doctrine, as it's full of contradiction and holes etc.
Been there suffered that.

So you're in the top 4 where evolution is concerned, where's your evidence of being in the top 10...

How did you come to that conclusion ?

Why not top 10 ?

one world order

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is the very definition of scapegoating. You do not get to redefine words to suit yourself. Bearing the crimes, and punishments for those crimes, of another person or group of people. Acting like your crimes can be forgiven by them being taken on by another. It is scapegoating 101 despite your pretence.

Absolutely nothing about morality requires magic, evolution can absolutely give it to us and in fact we observe rudimentary forms of it in the higher apes all the time. I invited you to the evolution discuss thread. I see you did not step up. Quelle Suprise huh.

The sacrifice of animals was a way for Gods chosen people to temporarily atone for their sins and to bring them closer to God. It highlighted the severity of sin to God and it was also pointing towards the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, which was the final sacrifice for forgiveness of sins through salvation in Christ.

What type of evidence would you like for God to exist. He cannot come into this world as that would change peoples free will to follow God or follow sin. Again creation is all around you, you cannot create everything from nothing, it makes zero sense.

So you deny you have a soul. Do you see any difference between a dead person and a person that is alive? For all the religions in the world, and atheistism is a religion, it offers the least rationale.

Studies have shown people that are spiritually sound are happier and live longer than those that believe in nothing but a complete emptiness.
The below shows the gap between countries and it is consistent, a higher share people who are religiously active describe themselves as very happy than those that are religiously inactive;
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

Your now asking for evidence of free will. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. We have seen it in the garden of Eden and we see it daily as people choose to sin or not to sin.

It is scientifically impossible to create everything from nothing. Only something very powerful outside of time, space and matter could have created everything. I will jump into the evolution thread when I have time, I will stay here for now unless given a warning and told not to post.

one world order

smacl wrote: »

In case you weren't aware, you're on a atheist forum where most folks here find your notion of a soul to be absurd, much like your notions of a god and the mythology that surrounds that god. The difference between a living and dead organism of any kind, whether a person or a fungal infection in between their toes, is that one is alive and the other isn't. So for example, if I use an anti-fungal cream to kill of the infection between my toes, do you suppose the souls all of the many fungi I've just slaughtered go to to fungus heaven? Or perhaps fungus hell, because after all they've been pretty cruel to my poor tootsies

What evidence can you provide that life could exist incorporeally, i.e. without any kind of a substrate? I assume this is what you mean by soul.

Most people that have reason can see a difference between a dead body and a person that is alive. A soul has mental abilities such as feeling, memory, preception, thinking and reason. May atheist's have over thought, going down a hole to try justify Gods non-existence resulting in absurd statements.

[Deleted User]

one world order wrote: »

The sacrifice of animals was a way for Gods chosen people to temporarily atone for their sins and to bring them closer to God. It highlighted the severity of sin to God and it was also pointing towards the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, which was the final sacrifice for forgiveness of sins through salvation in Christ.

I find it hard to know how a grown up person can think that... I know I shouldn't due to what I've learned about brainwashing, but it's still shocking to see it in black and white.

one world order wrote: »

Most people that have reason can see a difference between a dead body and a person that is alive. A soul has mental abilities such as feeling, memory, preception, thinking and reason. May atheist's have over thought, going down a hole to try justify Gods non-existence resulting in absurd statements.

Of course most people that have reason can see a difference between a dead body and a person that is alive. Life and death are real. That doesn't in any sense imply the existence of a soul, ghosts, or any other such incorporeal form of existence. Most reasonable adults don't believe in ghosts. If anything on this thread is absurd, it is the belief in that which is unevidenced and supernatural, and denial of well understood science such as genetics favoring instead ancient mythology fables.

one world order

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, you're wrong. You've either missed the point that I was making or flatly ignored it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was the former.

Luke 24:49

"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about."
Acts 1:4

So, how do you know there were any witnesses? Why should we trust Paul?

We all recognise the serpent in the garden was the devil tempting Adam and Eve. The bible doesn't need to state the blatantly obvious.

The bible also says the evil one, that been the devil controls this world. We can see that with the illuminati in todays world with their control of the financial system, world media, film and music industries. while they are very secretative, there are people who have been in the lower ranks that have given us a glimpse of what evil they do.

Exodus 21:21 says "Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property". This related to a letter Paul sent to Philemon regarding a slave called Onesimus he met. This was at a time when slaves existed, he had sent him back to his owner, not s a free person but to be treated well. It neither encourages or discourages slavery and it is not to be viewed as a rule book.

All organisms have high level instructions coded in tiny moducles to determine how they look, reproduce etc. Some instructions are similar in organisms but to infer humans came from apes because some of the high level DNA code is similar makes no sense. If you were going based on evolution, everything evolved from bacteria which came from nothing.

So the white sulphur ash on top of the melted buildings in Sodam and Gomorrah, where it only occurs here is meant to be bacteria that changed the area into ash. This again makes no sense. If you visted the area you can see rocks that are burnt, white ash all over the buildings, no white ash outside the city, old ruins of buildings and temples melted inwards. This cannot be explained away by bacteria. Videos on youtube give a good insight to the evidence existing today from when fire hailed down 3,500 ears ago.

There is evidence outside the bible in written accounts and archaeological evidence to support what happened in the bible. Jesus resurrection been witnessed by over 500 people was one of the main drivers for early Christians in that period. A recent study of seismic activity near the dead sea gives the date of death as 3 April 33 when the earth shook, rocks split and tombs opened.

nthclare wrote: »

This is typical of a response from an Atheist without attacking the poster.

I am glad you noticed I never attacked the poster.

nthclare wrote: »

Sounds like you've made up your mind before you asked any questions about a diety.

I have not "made up my mind" as such. What I have done however is built up a massive wealth of experience in talking with theists. And not just some but ALL of that experience so far has gone one way and one way only: Which is not seeing them evidence their claims.

I still talk to them however when they show up, precisely because I am not "made up" on this but always open to discourse and always open to new evidence coming I have not been shown before.

nthclare wrote: »

As an agnostic pagan I believe in evolution but my trust with science is slightly diluted in the last few years.

The whole point of science is not to simply trust, but to test test, question, test again. So ironically your drop in trust might make you a better scientist.

nthclare wrote: »

It's easy to debunk it at times, especially in the plant Kingdom the benefits of hybridised plant's for consumption, manipulating nature has horrific outcomes.

Manipulation of nature in and of itself does not have horrific outcomes usually. It is what we DO with that result, data or knowledge that does good or does bad. Take splitting the atom for example. That has good applications if we choose them. It has horrific ones too if we choose them.

Science itself does not do evil, or good. It gives us the tools to choose good or evil. And I would grant you, we choose the latter more often than I would like for sure. But that is not the fault of science.

nthclare wrote: »

So you're in the top 4 where evolution is concerned, where's your evidence of being in the top 10...

Do you read things people write before you reply to them. Look again, I said that estimation was a guess. I was very clear and open and honest that it was a guess. I have followed all the threads on the atheist forum on the evolution subject for many years including the painful back and forth with "J C" where I read for my sufference every single post in that thread.

Thus far I remember three users specifically who I remember saying "Jaysus, Ive studied this stuff deeply and this guy/gal knows a hell of a lot more than me about it all the same". So my guess is based on that only really. But when I say I got the feeling they knew more, I mean a LOT more. There are users around here who every time they post you just know you're in the presence of someone who knows more than you do, and maybe more than you ever will.

Pretty much every post made by Oldrnwisr above for instance would be an example of that. I learn multiple things pretty much every time he deigns to post here.

But this area of the forum does not have a hell of a lot of posters, so thinking oneself in the top 4 on any given topic is actually quite meaningless really

It's like when Neil DeGrasse Tyson was asked if he felt proud of winning the award of "Sexiest Astrophysicist" and he replied simply "Have you considered the category at all?"

one world order wrote: »

The sacrifice of animals was a way

You are missing the point by going on about animals being replaced with humans. My point once again has nothing to do with WHO or WHAT is being scarified. It doesn't matter which it is. It is STILL "Scapegoating" and it is still a morally barbaric and bankrupt process that no one I can think of other than you looks back on fondly.

The idea my moral transgressions can be put on something or someone else, and atoned for by killing that someone or something, is a horrific morally bankrupt notion that you can keep for yourself. I want no part in it. I do not accept a claim I have been given a "gift" that I would have fought with by entire being to prevent were I present.

one world order wrote: »

What type of evidence would you like for God to exist.

I will consider and comment on any evidence you present with an open mind, and an honest reply. I can not however tell you what your evidence is, should be, or what form it might take. That's your job if you wish to accept it. Not mine.

Firstly It is for the person making a claim to evidence that claim, so do not ask me to do it for you.

Secondly however if I presume to say what I think the evidence should/might be then I am creating a bias in myself. I might miss the ACTUAL evidence when it comes because it does not fit my preconceived expectations or demands.

So no, I will remain open to discussion about anything YOU think is evidence that your god exists. I will absolutely refuse always to tell you what that evidence is, or might be. It is both morally, and intellectually, the wrong thing for me to do.

one world order wrote: »

He cannot come into this world as that would change peoples free will

I said it before, but you ignored it, but you have no actually evidenced that claim we HAVE free will. It is a very contentious issue in philosophical and neuro science circles. It is by no means at all a consensus that we have it at all.

one world order wrote: »

you cannot create everything from nothing

Why is it every time I reply to something you say, you merely say the same thing exactly at me again? Am I having a conversation with a stuck record, or an adult here? I hope the latter.

AGAIN: Where are you getting the idea of "nothing" from. We have no evidence or knowledge at this time that there ever was "nothing". You are making that assumption up because it suits you.

one world order wrote: »

So you deny you have a soul.

Again, not what I said. Again I replied to you saying this and again you are simply saying the same thing again as if I never replied.

Is your entire MO to be merely to ignore my replies, and spout the same things at me again I already replied to? If so we should cut this conversation short sooner rather than later because you are not engaging with it openly, honestly, or maturely.

Here is what I wrote last time you said the above:

I subscribe to the notion that not just some, not just most, but ALL The evidence we have related to human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness..... links it to the brain. Therefore there is NO evidence at this time, least of all from you, that this survives the death of the brain at all.

one world order wrote: »

Do you see any difference between a dead person and a person that is alive?

Yes, in one the biological processes of life are ongoing. In the other they have ceased. It is like asking me do I see a difference between a candle that is lit, and one that is extinguished. They are the same candle, but chemical and physical processes are occurring in one that are not in the other. I see no other difference than this at this time. If you do, by all means evidence them rather than assert them.

one world order wrote: »

Studies have shown

No, they haven't but as I said before you keep saying "studies have shown" and when asked to cite or show these studies we get the intellectual equivalent of crickets.

one world order wrote: »

The below shows the gap between countries and it is consistent, a higher share people who are religiously active describe themselves as very happy than those that are religiously inactive

Which, if you were actually reading my posts rather than just hitting "reply" and ignoring them, you would know I already said this too. Being ACTIVE in religious customs is absolutely a predictor of better health and well being outcomes. And yes many studies have indeed shown this.

What those studies do NOT show is that it has anything whatsoever to do with the spiritual or supernatural beliefs of the person in question. In fact an atheist with no religious belief at all can garner the same benefits in the same way. And in fact you can gain many of the same benefits by equivalent participation in any mutually supportive social group. It does not have to be religious.

So again, the studies of which there are many, simply do not AT ALL show or claim what you are pretending they do.

one world order wrote: »

Your now asking for evidence of free will. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. We have seen it in the garden of Eden and we see it daily as people choose to sin or not to sin.

So your "evidence" for free will is merely to give a definition of what you think it means? That's not evidence, that's nomenclature. You would not evidence the existence of cats by merely telling me cats have fur. Do you know what "evidence" means actually, as this is not the first time I have gotten the strong impression you don't.

In the classical sense Free Will is the concept that when you performed an action, that you could have done otherwise in the moment. And it as a concept is one that is poorly evidenced. For example, we have no evidence at all that when you sit at a table and choose which arm to reach out with to pick up a glass of water that the decision was ultimately "yours". You can reach out right away, or you can contemplate the choice for hours on end before taking the glass, but the final decision is not one we appear able to account for in any way, much less evidence.

I am entirely open minded on the subject and have been for some time. I know I FEEL l like I have free will, but I know I can not rationally account for it either. There is simply no evidence I know of at this time that we actually do have it.

So if you want to use "free will" as a move in evidencing the existence of god, you need to evidence first the existence of free will. We can not simply allow it as an assumption in that context. And I am simply unconvinced at this time it is a real thing as most people understand it.

PukkaStukka

Ann G wrote: »

.................and all I was seeking was some opinions on priests and their cash in hand activities.

What do you mean by "cash in hand"?

barney shamrock

F..k me I'm sorry I wandered into this $hitstorm thread, cheerio!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am glad you noticed I never attacked the poster.

I have not "made up my mind" as such. What I have done however is built up a massive wealth of experience in talking with theists. And not just some but ALL of that experience so far has gone one way and one way only: Which is not seeing them evidence their claims.

I still talk to them however when they show up, precisely because I am not "made up" on this but always open to discourse and always open to new evidence coming I have not been shown before.

The whole point of science is not to simply trust, but to test test, question, test again. So ironically your drop in trust might make you a better scientist.

Manipulation of nature in and of itself does not have horrific outcomes usually. It is what we DO with that result, data or knowledge that does good or does bad. Take splitting the atom for example. That has good applications if we choose them. It has horrific ones too if we choose them.

Science itself does not do evil, or good. It gives us the tools to choose good or evil. And I would grant you, we choose the latter more often than I would like for sure. But that is not the fault of science.

Do you read things people write before you reply to them. Look again, I said that estimation was a guess. I was very clear and open and honest that it was a guess. I have followed all the threads on the atheist forum on the evolution subject for many years including the painful back and forth with "J C" where I read for my sufference every single post in that thread.

Thus far I remember three users specifically who I remember saying "Jaysus, Ive studied this stuff deeply and this guy/gal knows a hell of a lot more than me about it all the same". So my guess is based on that only really. But when I say I got the feeling they knew more, I mean a LOT more. There are users around here who every time they post you just know you're in the presence of someone who knows more than you do, and maybe more than you ever will.

Pretty much every post made by Oldrnwisr above for instance would be an example of that. I learn multiple things pretty much every time he deigns to post here.

But this area of the forum does not have a hell of a lot of posters, so thinking oneself in the top 4 on any given topic is actually quite meaningless really It's like when Neil DeGrasse Tyson was asked if he felt proud of winning the award of "Sexiest Astrophysicist" and he replied simply "Have you considered the category at all?"

Thanks for not attacking my post either

Oldrnwisers posts are pretty much medicore to be honest, a posting style that pretty much sums up why he used that username.

I'm from North Clare myself,so that's why I used the name Nthclare, with a silent or....

I know more about the Burren than any other poster here,and that saddens me feeling alone in the biosphere of The Atheist and Agnostic forum.

There was a time when this forum was great craic, and banter, unfair bans and laughter.

Yes you're right about science, it does give you the tools to do good or evil.

Nature never forgives, I remember one time I quoted "John Moriarty" here saying I heard him say nature never forgives..
Sure Robindch wasn't long about having a dig at John saying he knew him year's ago in Connemara and proceeded to try to undermine the guy....

You say people can't evidence their claims, but I find it hard to get my head around humanity claiming they're the most intelligent form of life on this planet.

I'd say dolphins and Octopuses are far more intelligent than us.

Being an agnostic pagan I believe that there's something intelligent at work in the universe but it's not the biblical god or sky fairy you hear intelligent idiot's call people's God.

I look at a breaking wave on a reef on an offshore day, who's the intelligent one ?

The surfer getting shacked or the way nature combined with, a slab of rock, offshore breeze and heavy ground swell forms the perfect wave.

In my eye I'm only the observer, it's my opinion but I didn't create that beauty and perfection.
So like the big blue dot, I'm tiny in the big scheme of things.

The Abrahamic belief's have a different idea to the pagan, they'll believe God put that there and it's for our use, it doesn't go any further, other than thanking God and he created in that's it.

The atheist, well I never asked one what do they think of creation, how they observe a flower in a meadow...

Would you like to see evidence for the Abrahamic God?

I wouldn't to be honest, If I was a writer of a story about the battle of the God's I'd have the Abrahamic diety as a warmongering, manipulative , diety of fear and retribution.

Basically a sand Demon from the middle east who's infiltration of the western world is absolute Chao's and all the other god's getting together and banishing that demonstrates back to the sandy waste lands it came from.

There is a lot of lashing out at other posters there like Old and Rob, I will not reply to any of it. It is irrelevant and I do not see your opinion on their quality as all that meaningful or well founded.

nthclare wrote: »

You say people can't evidence their claims, but I find it hard to get my head around humanity claiming they're the most intelligent form of life on this planet.

Did I say they can't? Usually I do not say they can't, I said they HAVENT. Which is much different. If I typed "cant" then I mistyped. I do not know whether they can or not to be honest. I just know that when I ask them to, time and time and time and time again, they have not done so.

Maybe they can, they just are choosing not to. How would I know? I just can not think what their motivation is if so.

What I do know, is that I am personally still unaware of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest a non-human intentional intelligent agent exists and created the universe and/or life within it. If you think there is such an intelligence at work in the universe the so to must I say the same to you. I am unaware of ANY evidence for that position.

The things you are describing like waves breaking bring a sense of awe, wonder, and the numinous to my heart and mind too. I see no reason to mistake them as, or portray them as, part of some intelligence however.

nthclare wrote: »

The atheist, well I never asked one what do they think of creation, how they observe a flower in a meadow...

Maybe it is time you ask them? If I can be said to "worship" anything in this world, it is discourse.

nthclare wrote: »

Would you like to see evidence for the Abrahamic God?

I do not specifically want evidence for anything. I want evidence for what is true about our universe and our existence in it. If that is a god, then sure I want to see evidence for that. If it is something else then I want to see evidence for THAT.

I am not invested in any one thing being true, or untrue at all. I would not prefer there to be a god or not be a god. I simply want to know what IS true, whatever it is. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The truth might be horrific and abhorrent to me when I find it. So be it. I still want to know what it is.

Right now, I see not just little but NO reason to think the idea there is a god is true however.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is a lot of lashing out at other posters there like Old and Rob, I will not reply to any of it. It is irrelevant and I do not see your opinion on their quality as all that meaningful or well founded.

Did I say they can't? Usually I do not say they can't, I said they HAVENT. Which is much different. If I typed "cant" then I mistyped. I do not know whether they can or not to be honest. I just know that when I ask them to, time and time and time and time again, they have not done so.

Maybe they can, they just are choosing not to. How would I know? I just can not think what their motivation is if so.

What I do know, is that I am personally still unaware of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest a non-human intentional intelligent agent exists and created the universe and/or life within it. If you think there is such an intelligence at work in the universe the so to must I say the same to you. I am unaware of ANY evidence for that position.

The things you are describing like waves breaking bring a sense of awe, wonder, and the numinous to my heart and mind too. I see no reason to mistake them as, or portray them as, part of some intelligence however.

Maybe it is time you ask them? If I can be said to "worship" anything in this world, it is discourse.

I do not specifically want evidence for anything. I want evidence for what is true about our universe and our existence in it. If that is a god, then sure I want to see evidence for that. If it is something else then I want to see evidence for THAT.

I am not invested in any one thing being true, or untrue at all. I would not prefer there to be a god or not be a god. I simply want to know what IS true, whatever it is. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The truth might be horrific and abhorrent to me when I find it. So be it. I still want to know what it is.

Right now, I see not just little but NO reason to think the idea there is a god is true however.

Your response makes sense to me thanks.
I won't drag anyone down a rabbit hole or off to narnia but it's good to hear your side of the discussion.
I respect that and I sometimes wonder if we didn't label ourselves would the world be a different place.

A thiest agnostic and an atheist walk into a coffee shop and the have a good laugh and banter.
That's the way I roll with my friends,we have great debates and slag the absolute sh1,t out of each other.
No tears resentment or emotional triggers, just grown men and women emotionally aware enough to not take it personal.

It's a shame on board's we get infractions and carded for that.
As it's nothing personal just usernames being human.

Life is the longest thing we'll ever experience...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

nthclare wrote: »

I respect that and I sometimes wonder if we didn't label ourselves would the world be a different place.

True. I tend to avoid many if not most labels. I have said many times for instance I almost always refuse to even label myself atheist. It's a word I have little time/use for myself.

OTHER people call me it, and I am good with that. They aren't exactly wrong.

nthclare wrote: »

Life is the longest thing we'll ever experience...

I forget who said it, I think it was some comedian, but someone said something to him like "Life is short" and he responded with "Yeah? Tell me one thing you'll ever do that takes longer."

Amused me at the time.

Actually the short transient nature of life is what gives it meaning and worth to me. So I find myself relieved in fact that there is ZERO evidence for an after life, let alone an ETERNAL one. How meaningless and pointless THIS life, or any life, would be under the rubric of eternity.

Kylta

I am really enjoying this debate. We have very intelligent posters here, who I must say are educating me in both camps as you put your opinions forward. The debate really centres on evidence for non-believers and faith for believers.

robindch

nthclare wrote: »

Oldrnwisers posts are pretty much medicore to be honest, a posting style that pretty much sums up why he used that username.

Oldrnwisr's posts are uniformly excellent - though like most things in life, you will earn in proportion to the effort you put in and from your unfriendly comment, one assumes that you've put little or no effort in to reading them.

nthclare wrote: »

Nature never forgives, I remember one time I quoted "John Moriarty" here saying I heard him say nature never forgives... Sure Robindch wasn't long about having a dig at John saying he knew him year's ago in Connemara and proceeded to try to undermine the guy....

You don't remember very well - I knew John Moriarty when he used to live a mile or two away from me in Kerry.

While John was well versed in poetry and prose, his knowledge of science and the world around him generally was zero, or indeed, subzero since he appeared to have spent much time developing or acquiring a range of anti-scientific and unscientific views and information which would have embarrassed a mediocre secondary school student.

nthclare wrote: »

The atheist, well I never asked one what do they think of creation, how they observe a flower in a meadow...

A point which I took up with Moriarty myself one day and found his answer as halfhearted as it was presumptuous. He explained using reams of vague, woolly words that real beauty could never be found or appreciated by people who were able to look at things carefully and scientifically. I replied that science did not detract from one's own natural appreciation, but instead, added to it by finding new dimensions to wonder at. He countered, saying that it was closed-minded to look at things scientifically - he did not explain why and I recall abandoning the conversation shortly afterwards as it was clear that he had his point of view, and wasn't interested in either changing it, or making any effort to learn whether it was inaccurate. He seemed unconcerned about the his presumptuousness.

Fenyman had a similar discussion with one of his friends:

robindch wrote: »

Oldrnwisr's posts are uniformly excellent - though like most things in life, you will earn in proportion to the effort you put in and from your unfriendly comment, one assumes that you've put little or no effort in to reading them.You don't remember very well - I knew John Moriarty when he used to live a mile or two away from me in Kerry.

While John was well versed in poetry and prose, his knowledge of science and the world around him generally was zero, or indeed, subzero since he appeared to have spent much time developing or acquiring a range of anti-scientific and unscientific views and information which would have embarrassed a mediocre secondary school student.A point which I took up with Moriarty myself one day and found his answer as halfhearted as it was presumptuous. He explained using reams of vague, woolly words that real beauty could never be found or appreciated by people who were able to look at things carefully and scientifically. I replied that science did not detract from one's own natural appreciation, but instead, added to it by finding new dimensions to wonder at. He countered, saying that it was closed-minded to look at things scientifically - he did not explain why and I recall abandoning the conversation shortly afterwards as it was clear that he had his point of view, and wasn't interested in either changing it, or making any effort to learn whether it was inaccurate. He seemed unconcerned about the his presumptuousness.

Fenyman had a similar discussion with one of his friends:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

I could have wrote that response myself, Kerry, Connemara few miles apart in the bigger scheme of things.

Comparing Moriarty with a medicore secondary student is a bit unfair, but if you're content with that assumption then I have an understanding of how you compare people.

John probably sensed you were trying to catch him out and if you're not intuitive enough to think mystically and scientifically then take what you like from both then you're incapable of having a balanced discussion.

I know a lot about botany and horticulture so I can talk that language as well as learning about mysticism and thinking metaphorically, I'm also a poet and writer.

I'm a big fan of HP Lovecraft, amongst other writers and can look at what's going on around me through the mystical sense's and scientific evidence too.

I've shared a few journey's with John on busses in the 90's and I found him interesting and our ideas about plants were a bit oppositional, but I didn't think because I had a diploma in horticulture, I was a better gardener or he was a spoofer.

So you say John's knowledge about the world around him was zero or sub zero.
I don't have to prove that you're wrong because it's your opinion and obviously you're sticking to that.

I don't agree with everything John wrote, but I can see that he had a broad knowledge of the world around him. He lived in a rural setting and it was the world he knew and observed without having to have a scientific viewpoint, what has science to do with someone's world view ?

Some people's ability to match phenomes with understanding is a gift, others are already emotionally attached to a debate before it starts, therefore before the talk starts they're already right in their own mind, but they've already walked into the sword.

I come in here rarely as I find some poster's will try to cut another poster down rather than help build up an understanding and cooperation or some kind of level playing field.

Are these debate's in Atheism and Agnoticism a race ? a competion ? a difference of opinion ? or light hearted debate not to be taken seriously ?

Thanks for the Richard Feynman clip, I think with both sides, the poetic, artist as well as the scientific creative and wonderment of the flower.

But I prefer to work with the good old pre Victorian style plants for example regency period garden plants rather than the modern generic hybrid's and manipulated crop's.

I do see your point and I appreciate you pointing that out to me, believe you me having a head full of science, poetry, art and mysticism aint easy...

Kind of like mixing drinks on a night out, and waking up with a hangover..

Although I'm off the hooch 17 years, metaphorically speaking I'm only an arm's length away from a drink

nthclare wrote: »

Are these debate's in Atheism and Agnoticism a race ? a competion ? a difference of opinion ? or light hearted debate not to be taken seriously ?

All of the above?

When you train on a Juitisu mat by rolling with other combatants, you know it is friendly. But you still have to give it everything AS IF it was serious. IF you do not, you do yourself a disservice, your school a disservice, your opponent a disservice. And most of all, only by giving it all do you learn anything. Whether you "win" or "lose" you always learn if you give it everything. So you fight like your life depends on it, knowing it actually doesn't.

I think of conversation on this forum as being much like this. I give it everything I have, I throw down AS IF it's the most serious thing in the world and I can be quite robust in my replies. But I am never actually taking any of it all that seriously at all even if it really looks like I do. Why would I? It's an internet forum of faceless nobodies I will never know or meet most likely.

lion_bar

Some priests also come from wealthy families and may be funded by that too. One I know has serious wealth for several generations behind him. Lovely man and if he was concerned about wealth he'd not be a priest he'd have a fair easier route to it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When you train on a Juitisu mat by rolling with other combatants, you know it is friendly. But you still have to give it everything AS IF it was serious. IF you do not, you do yourself a disservice, your school a disservice, your opponent a disservice. And most of all, only by giving it all do you learn anything. Whether you "win" or "lose" you always learn if you give it everything. So you fight like your life depends on it, knowing it actually doesn't.

As a passionate martial artist competitive on the international scene for many years in my younger days, I'd have to disagree with the above. Sparring (e.g. rolling with club mates for BJJ players) is about learning and helping your team mate learn. Open competition is about winning. If you go all out when sparring, you're making the choice of trying to win over trying to learn and helping your teammate learn. You'll also pick up a lot of injuries and píssed off team mates for the sake of your own ego. Sparring is also, and should be, really good fun. Yes, you ramp up the intensity all the way preparing for competition but dial it right back afterwards.

Conversations like this are very similar in my opinion. It is not about playing to win so much as friendly sparring which allows you to probe weaknesses in your own understanding as well as those you're engaged with. For me it is a bit of light banter with the opportunity to learn something new.

I think speak for yourself then I suppose. I know when I have ever trained with such things we give it everything because when you do then you learn better. If you are training with someone going half ass on it then it is harder to be beaten and when you are beaten you learn. It's one of the things I love about it in fact, it brings a lovely humility and a nice life view that even in defeat one wins if one learns. I learned of course when people showed me moves and helped me practice executing them. I never learned so much though as when they did something on me and I got to post-process what happened and how.

I have heard Joe Rogan and Jokko Willik say pretty much the same thing too. But of course everyone trains different so I do not really see them, me, or you as "right" or "wrong" as such. Everyone does it their way.

All that said 1) I have trained hardly at all in my life compared to say you or taxahcruel who I know has been doing it intensely for over a decade and is frankly amazing at it so I am speaking as a complete novice and 2) we might be over extending the analogy a bit I think

The purpose of analogy is never to be perfect, but to illuminate a point.

Shame I do not know who you are though

Be fun to try and find some of your appearances online.

We'll agree to differ so. Going full tilt all the time was the type of approach we used in Karate in the 80s but for me is a young persons game. Learning how to relax and think under dynamic pressure was more of a focus in later years. More pragmatic than dogmatic and an approach I take to many aspects of life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Shame I do not know who you are though Be fun to try and find some of your appearances online.

Last big event I competed in was 2002, so more on VHS than online. John Kavanagh was a regular boardsie at that time too, offering free BJJ lessons to those interested. Opportunities lost, hey. All of my early posts on boards were over on martial arts and there used to be some video footage knocking around over there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think speak for yourself then I suppose. I know when I have ever trained with such things we give it everything because when you do then you learn better. If you are training with someone going half ass on it then it is harder to be beaten and when you are beaten you learn. It's one of the things I love about it in fact, it brings a lovely humility and a nice life view that even in defeat one wins if one learns. I learned of course when people showed me moves and helped me practice executing them. I never learned so much though as when they did something on me and I got to post-process what happened and how.

I have heard Joe Rogan and Jokko Willik say pretty much the same thing too. But of course everyone trains different so I do not really see them, me, or you as "right" or "wrong" as such. Everyone does it their way.

All that said 1) I have trained hardly at all in my life compared to say you or taxahcruel who I know has been doing it intensely for over a decade and is frankly amazing at it so I am speaking as a complete novice and 2) we might be over extending the analogy a bit I think The purpose of analogy is never to be perfect, but to illuminate a point.

Shame I do not know who you are though Be fun to try and find some of your appearances online.

Do you use gravity to your advantage, I loved a good old wrestle in my day and I learned how to use gravity to my advantage.

Used to do judo and kick boxing in the 90's then tried Jujitsu, but my martials art's came to an abrupt end after a bad accident and back surgery.
I'm still fit and athletic and can lift heavy item's and do physical work but impact is a no no..

I am a quite short wimpy IT computer nerd. Trust me I used ANYTHING to my advantage I could

Once had the privilege to watch TaxAHCruel and his girlfriends spar BJJ and demonstrate Capoeira for an hour or so in their garden. You learn quite quickly watching them just how little you know. Humbling isn't the word when a petite and insanely attractive 28 year old who looks 17 can manipulate you like a toy doll.

nthclare wrote: »

I know more about the Burren than any other poster here,and that saddens me feeling alone in the biosphere of The Atheist and Agnostic forum.

Fantastic part of the world that I used to get down to a couple of times a year. Haven't walked the Burren or had a pint in McGanns in a few years now, though taking the bike around Black Head remains for me one of life's true joys and I look forward to getting back there as soon as time allows.

Seems to no shortage of pagans around that neck of the woods either. My sister got married on Fanore beach many years back and we had a visit from the mummers in PJs later in the evening.

nthclare wrote: »

Do you use gravity to your advantage, I loved a good old wrestle in my day and I learned how to use gravity to my advantage.

Used to do judo and kick boxing in the 90's then tried Jujitsu, but my martials art's came to an abrupt end after a bad accident and back surgery.
I'm still fit and athletic and can lift heavy item's and do physical work but impact is a no no..

Also carrying a few injuries that keep me from any heavy wrestling, shame as it is fantastic craic. To be fair I reckon anyone who returns a pristine body to the coffin when it comes to their time to check out has possibly missed out on some of what life has to offer.

Mark Hamill

nthclare wrote: »

Oldrnwisers posts are pretty much medicore to be honest, a posting style that pretty much sums up why he used that username.

What does that even mean?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What does that even mean?

Draw your own conclusion, I'm slightly dyslexic so make up your own mind Mark...

Mark Hamill

nthclare wrote: »

Draw your own conclusion, I'm slightly dyslexic so make up your own mind Mark...

Make up my mind on what is going on in yours?
Are you trolling? Dyslexia doesn't stop you saying what you meant, just answer the question.