Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Priests and their obsession with Status and Wealth
Options
Comments
-
-
-
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.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
This is typical of a response from an Atheist without attacking the poster.
I am glad you noticed I never attacked the poster.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.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.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.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?" 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
-
-
-
-
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.Oldrnwisers posts are pretty much medicore to be honest, a posting style that pretty much sums up why he used that username.
You don't remember very well - I knew John Moriarty when he used to live a mile or two away from me in Kerry.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....
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.The atheist, well I never asked one what do they think of creation, how they observe a flower in a meadow...
Fenyman had a similar discussion with one of his friends:
0 -
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:
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 ?0 -
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 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
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. 0 -
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.0 -
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..0 -
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. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo
Advertisement