Ben Stein

  On 12/29/2009 at 3:41 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

you guys hate him because he has different beliefs than you. sad.

I hate him because he's an intelligent man who resorts to rhetoric that appeals to the worst part of human nature. As zaphod said, he's just a grumpy old man.

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:17 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 7:41 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 6:49 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

atheists are looking for an easy way out, just as religious beliefs.

 

there is a commonality between the two that must be reconciled.

 

it may blow people's minds, but science and religion grew out of each other.

 

please expand on your first statement.

 

i agree with your last one. both arose because people questioned how the universe worked. however, science relies on observable facts while religion relies on made-up stories. that can't be reconciled because they are two totally different ways of explaining nature.

 

belief that nothing concerns the governance of the universe is just as silly as saying the universe is governed by Thor or whoever the idol of worship may be. atheists always sorta piss me off because , and im generalizing here, they are just as blind in their worship of science, and yes i mean worship. things that are "proven" are proven, end of story, and you are a fool if you challenge any of it....which sorta overrides the meaning of the scientific process in the first place.

 

99.9% true is not an ultimate truth. Atheists choose to side with the 99.9% as an ultimate truth, but it is not, scientifically, they are incorrect and therefore are hypocritical in their stance.

 

I am an Agnostic, I think its the most logical position to be honest.

 

and im sure there is fault in my argument, its stupid, etc etc. that's fine, but my point is that there is a flaw in every argument, and to uphold the tenets of Christianity or the tenets that no greater power exist are equally as foolish.

 

i also feel that a large majority of atheists (i myself being one for a time) do it out of spite for organized religion instead of real deep analysis of the idea of a "God" or greater power.

 

and to an extent, i cant fault them for that...i mean organized religion is as much at fault as modern politics for the fake veil of civilization slowly fettering away its own sheath.

fucking bravo IV

science to some degree is a competition and if you have the right degree and the right plac on the wall then you

can belong to the right club. if you have a proven process and someone questions it then it's not always about

finding out what the truth is, alot of the time it is about keeping your status, your plac and your

name. this is what darwin got caught up in and many have fallen to this immense pressure of

success and making a name for one self.

i'm not saying that this is always the case, but even if result fell victim to this 10% of the

time there would be a real credibility problem. (especially considering that the most important

ones would feel the most pressure and be the most likely to protect a false theory or have false

information upheld for special interests)

lets say for instance a person create a precess and 1000's of people counted on it

for there lively hood, lets say they are in the position to have to say they're proven process

is wrong or that the way that they came up with to do something doesn't make as much sense

as was originally thought, or it effects something negatively that they did not foresee at first....

is this person going to be strong enough in the truth to change there proof?

then you bring money and special interests into the equation and the scientific process

becomes a bit wonky to say the least.

  On 12/28/2009 at 8:47 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

thats one of the things i love about humanity, we are capable of this amazing capacity to reason and attempt to quantify and define all things of the universe, but thats just it. it's our capacity as humans, in reality, we may know fuck-all about anything.

 

you are amazing, IV

thanks?

glad to see some people think the same way, not saying its right or wrong, but lately it makes much more sense than older modes of thinking i used to adhere to.

i find people who are really into being atheists tedious. Maybe it's just a reaction to being surrounded by christians. I dont really know any christians so i dont have that problem personally.

some people have the weirdest idea of what science is and how it actually works.

It is just a way of generating knowledge and it is simply the most reliable method mankind has ever known, by far. but that's it, there's nothing of great significance to be extracted from it, other than interesting philosophical implications to discuss.

re: Smettingham Rutherford IV. most atheists are just against the idea of a personal god. which pretty much translates into organized religion.

  On 12/29/2009 at 5:56 AM, GORDO said:

some people have the weirdest idea of what science is and how it actually works.

 

It is just a way of generating knowledge and it is simply the most reliable method mankind has ever known, by far. but that's it, there's nothing of great significance to be extracted from it, other than interesting philosophical implications to discuss.

 

re: Smettingham Rutherford IV. most atheists are just against the idea of a personal god. which pretty much translates into organized religion.

what is a personal god though?

an atheist would literally, be anti-theist...that's about as far as i can take that idea.

ive never heard one atheist in my life say they don't deny God, they just dislike the Church and deities that would give birth to such organizations.

fuck, id love to go on but i think im losing the plot and im tired as hell.

an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that gods exist.

how is that not what i just said/

oh fuck it im too tired. i yield the soapbox

  On 12/28/2009 at 11:57 PM, dr lopez said:

 

 

living your life in an ethical manner

yes but what does this mean? what is the exact definition of ethical? (what are we willing to except as individuals?)...is that all ethical means?

we are in an advanced state of disfunction now because 1000's

of years ago we gave away our guidelines for what ethical mean's

and exchanged it for what we wanted.

(convenient misunderstanding possibly to, how hard was/is the law to understand really anyway? no very hard.)

what is there that is hard to understand about 'thou shalt not kill'? seems pretty straight forward to me.

whats wrong with trying not to kill or the other laws? whats wrong with a plant based lifestyle or a

world free of petroleum based solutions?

is "i want to do this or that because it is my right as a human being" a good enough reason to say we can do things

that hurt other living beings? i don't think so if there are other viable alternatives that we could be making use of instead.

these are some of the real questions.....

what could we be doing instead of what we are doing that could be better?

...and what have we been told are better ways to do things that are not actually the best way to do things?

are we sick without knowing it?

because things happen gradually in this life, does it mean that we don't notice certain things until they are

at a certain point of maturity?

what don't we know and why don't we know it?

are there power structures that distort and keep knowledge and truth from us in the world?

how do we free ourselves from them if we use there modern systems to learn what we know?

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:16 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 5:56 AM, GORDO said:

some people have the weirdest idea of what science is and how it actually works.

 

It is just a way of generating knowledge and it is simply the most reliable method mankind has ever known, by far. but that's it, there's nothing of great significance to be extracted from it, other than interesting philosophical implications to discuss.

 

re: Smettingham Rutherford IV. most atheists are just against the idea of a personal god. which pretty much translates into organized religion.

 

what is a personal god though?

 

an atheist would literally, be anti-theist...that's about as far as i can take that idea.

 

ive never heard one atheist in my life say they don't deny God, they just dislike the Church and deities that would give birth to such organizations.

 

 

fuck, id love to go on but i think im losing the plot and im tired as hell.

a personal god is a god that is a person. or that has a personality much like a human has.

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:24 AM, troon said:

  On 12/28/2009 at 11:57 PM, dr lopez said:

 

 

living your life in an ethical manner

 

 

yes but what does this mean? what is the exact definition of ethical? (what are we willing to except as individuals?)...is that all ethical means?

we are in an advanced state of disfunction now because 1000's

of years ago we gave away our guidelines for what ethical mean's

and exchanged it for what we wanted.

(convenient misunderstanding possibly to, how hard was/is the law to understand really anyway? no very hard.)

what is there that is hard to understand about 'thou shalt not kill'? seems pretty straight forward to me.

whats wrong with trying not to kill or the other laws? whats wrong with a plant based lifestyle or a

world free of petroleum based solutions?

 

is "i want to do this or that because it is my right as a human being" a good enough reason to say we can do things

that hurt other living beings? i don't think so if there are other viable alternatives that we could be making use of instead.

 

these are some of the real questions.....

what could we be doing instead of what we are doing that could be better?

...and what have we been told are better ways to do things that are not actually the best way to do things?

 

are we sick without knowing it?

because things happen gradually in this life, does it mean that we don't notice certain things until they are

at a certain point of maturity?

 

what don't we know and why don't we know it?

 

are there power structures that distort and keep knowledge and truth from us in the world?

how do we free ourselves from them if we use there modern systems to learn what we know?

there are no absolutes.

what is most important for us to understand? earthly things or things that are beyond this

limited environment? even beyond the universe?

sometimes if we look to deeply in something it can put us to sleep.

if we stare at something that is large from to close a perspective then it

is hard to see the whole thing we are looking at. sometimes it is important

to go outside a thing to gain the proper perspective and truly see it.

if i ride a bike and with eye's fixed look at the beauty of the bike the whole time instead of where i'm going

then i will soon crash.

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:32 AM, GORDO said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:16 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 5:56 AM, GORDO said:

some people have the weirdest idea of what science is and how it actually works.

 

It is just a way of generating knowledge and it is simply the most reliable method mankind has ever known, by far. but that's it, there's nothing of great significance to be extracted from it, other than interesting philosophical implications to discuss.

 

re: Smettingham Rutherford IV. most atheists are just against the idea of a personal god. which pretty much translates into organized religion.

 

what is a personal god though?

 

an atheist would literally, be anti-theist...that's about as far as i can take that idea.

 

ive never heard one atheist in my life say they don't deny God, they just dislike the Church and deities that would give birth to such organizations.

 

 

fuck, id love to go on but i think im losing the plot and im tired as hell.

 

a personal god is a god that is a person. or that has a personality much like a human has.

these type of things are energies and principalities, they are not human form or any fleshy form. all that appeared and was called god in the past were fleshy versions, but not truly God.

the light we see is earthly light, the light of heaven is brighter then 1000 suns and does not shine hear.

God is beyond any feminine or masculine or any defined concept in the dimensional universe, it is beyond our science. it is the nothing that is everything forever, it is eternal..

any correlation with an earthly thing is just a human concept trying to explain God in

human words with a human perspective. in reality the definition of God goes way beyond

our ability to explain with our miniscule intellects/brains and even our small souls, spirits and hearts.

yes we try to understand things down here, but truly it's what we

do or don't do on a moral level and what we understand in our hearts... as far as an accurate definition of what that means that counts more then picking things apart

into pieces in their physical forms.

for some it is about watching the bird fly. for other's it is about understanding why and

for still other's it is written in them to know the answer when they find it.

Thanks Ben Stein! I really enjoyed that (haters gonna hate).

I can relate to Hanukkah too. Antiochus IV, unfortunately, was not the last of his kind. One more to come like him.

Just have a look, though, at what happens when we push away God.

awesome

I saw some people talking about this science vs the bible false dichotomy. If anyone is interested in hearing how Genesis lines up pretty well with our understanding of the big bang and formation of the earth, i'd be glad to give it (ancient Hebrew differs much from modern english, for instance while our vocabulary ranges in the millions of words, theirs was only just over 3,000, and often words had multiple dimensions of meaning).

  On 12/29/2009 at 12:35 AM, GORDO said:

so did everyone miss the part where he advocates hitting children?

yea, thats the one part i was disappointed with.

words when used correctly are plenty to help a child to understand what is right and what is wrong.

hitting kids is fucked, i don't care if it is called a spanking or whatever... it is all the

same to me.

unacceptable!

oh ill spank a kid, i definately believe that.

its beatin the wanton shit out of a kid that im not particularly down with.

but then, these are also reasons i never wish to become a father.

  On 12/29/2009 at 7:12 AM, troon said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 12:35 AM, GORDO said:

so did everyone miss the part where he advocates hitting children?

 

 

yea, thats the one part i was disappointed with.

words when used correctly are plenty to help a child to understand what is right and what is wrong.

 

hitting kids is fucked, i don't care if it is called a spanking or whatever... it is all the

same to me.

 

unacceptable!

i don't think you should beat them, but what about spare the rod, spoil the child.

just a few taps on the behind, they will not die. my dad spanked me a few times and i think it did a lot more for me than giving me a time out.

  On 12/29/2009 at 7:18 AM, glasse said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 7:12 AM, troon said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 12:35 AM, GORDO said:

so did everyone miss the part where he advocates hitting children?

 

 

yea, thats the one part i was disappointed with.

words when used correctly are plenty to help a child to understand what is right and what is wrong.

 

hitting kids is fucked, i don't care if it is called a spanking or whatever... it is all the

same to me.

 

unacceptable!

 

i don't think you should beat them, but what about spare the rod, spoil the child.

 

just a few taps on the behind, they will not die. my dad spanked me a few times and i think it did a lot more for me than giving me a time out.

i think that all things (potential solutions) that include pain, sorrow and suffering should be engaged with only when all

other options have been exhausted (and even then i am hesitant, would consult intuition and take much thought). i would explain things to a child in as clear a

manner as i could put forth and i would not have children until i felt properly prepared to take on

that responsibility in pure truth. i hope to be full enough- to be mature enough- to have a wife and children some day

  On 12/29/2009 at 7:07 AM, troon said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:32 AM, GORDO said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:16 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 5:56 AM, GORDO said:

some people have the weirdest idea of what science is and how it actually works.

 

It is just a way of generating knowledge and it is simply the most reliable method mankind has ever known, by far. but that's it, there's nothing of great significance to be extracted from it, other than interesting philosophical implications to discuss.

 

re: Smettingham Rutherford IV. most atheists are just against the idea of a personal god. which pretty much translates into organized religion.

 

what is a personal god though?

 

an atheist would literally, be anti-theist...that's about as far as i can take that idea.

 

ive never heard one atheist in my life say they don't deny God, they just dislike the Church and deities that would give birth to such organizations.

 

 

fuck, id love to go on but i think im losing the plot and im tired as hell.

 

a personal god is a god that is a person. or that has a personality much like a human has.

 

these type of things are energies and principalities, they are not human form or any fleshy form. all that appeared and was called god in the past were fleshy versions, but not truly God.

the light we see is earthly light, the light of heaven is brighter then 1000 suns and does not shine hear.

God is beyond any feminine or masculine or any defined concept in the dimensional universe, it is beyond our science. it is the nothing that is everything forever, it is eternal..

any correlation with an earthly thing is just a human concept trying to explain God in

human words with a human perspective. in reality the definition of God goes way beyond

our ability to explain with our miniscule intellects/brains and even our small souls, spirits and hearts.

 

yes we try to understand things down here, but truly it's what we

do or don't do on a moral level and what we understand in our hearts... as far as an accurate definition of what that means that counts more then picking things apart

into pieces in their physical forms.

 

for some it is about watching the bird fly. for other's it is about understanding why and

for still other's it is written in them to know the answer when they find it.

so your god is some unintelligible something. do you believe it has wishes and cares?

  On 12/29/2009 at 8:32 AM, GORDO said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 7:07 AM, troon said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:32 AM, GORDO said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 6:16 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/29/2009 at 5:56 AM, GORDO said:

some people have the weirdest idea of what science is and how it actually works.

 

It is just a way of generating knowledge and it is simply the most reliable method mankind has ever known, by far. but that's it, there's nothing of great significance to be extracted from it, other than interesting philosophical implications to discuss.

 

re: Smettingham Rutherford IV. most atheists are just against the idea of a personal god. which pretty much translates into organized religion.

 

what is a personal god though?

 

an atheist would literally, be anti-theist...that's about as far as i can take that idea.

 

ive never heard one atheist in my life say they don't deny God, they just dislike the Church and deities that would give birth to such organizations.

 

 

fuck, id love to go on but i think im losing the plot and im tired as hell.

 

a personal god is a god that is a person. or that has a personality much like a human has.

 

these type of things are energies and principalities, they are not human form or any fleshy form. all that appeared and was called god in the past were fleshy versions, but not truly God.

the light we see is earthly light, the light of heaven is brighter then 1000 suns and does not shine hear.

God is beyond any feminine or masculine or any defined concept in the dimensional universe, it is beyond our science. it is the nothing that is everything forever, it is eternal..

any correlation with an earthly thing is just a human concept trying to explain God in

human words with a human perspective. in reality the definition of God goes way beyond

our ability to explain with our miniscule intellects/brains and even our small souls, spirits and hearts.

 

yes we try to understand things down here, but truly it's what we

do or don't do on a moral level and what we understand in our hearts... as far as an accurate definition of what that means that counts more then picking things apart

into pieces in their physical forms.

 

for some it is about watching the bird fly. for other's it is about understanding why and

for still other's it is written in them to know the answer when they find it.

 

so your god is some unintelligible something. do you believe it has wishes and cares?

yes (and it does not belong to me, i belong to it)

so you believe god has the concept of property.

  On 12/29/2009 at 8:47 AM, GORDO said:

so you believe god has the concept of property.

no, thats just a way to explain it from in here (physical reality) where property exists.

there is a small piece of God that is in my heart, this small piece is the true

me, not this flesh robot that i am riding in. there is no ownership, i am a

part of it and it is in this flesh being, doing things that it needs to do.

the challenge is to separate the fleshy thing from the spirit within,

so that i can see from inside instead of just outside.

if it make you happy so be it.