Hey Doug,
Here's just one reply in response to your three.
>Well, then you "believe" in yourself as the 'final' arbiter of right/wrong, good/bad and so forth.
I woudn't say that.
>You say that people ask you questions and you answer them.
I didn't say that either. I said I think about them.
>This is called 'agnosticism' (a-gnosis, where 'gnosis' is Greek for 'knowing' or 'knowledge'), roughly translated from Latin as 'ignoramous'. <g>
The difference between me and agnostics is, they usually wonder "Does God exist?" while I try to live my life as the question itself did not exist.
>Don't say that there's no evidence if you choose to not look at what is being offered. <g> This sounds like you've already made your mind up and are ignoring the evidence.
Ignoreing evidence? Like "love" as evidence? Sorry, Doug, but just because you cannot explain certain things, it doesn't mean that its evidence that a God exists. And if it did prove a God existed, does it prove that its the Bible's God?
>That is, You have pre-judged the outcome without respect for the facts. That's called 'prejudice' Mike and isn't an indication of an open mind.
I see two facts here:
You don't know how a blade of grass lives or the mind works.
You use that uncertainty to mean something supernatural is behind everything.
This is the same thing humans have done since we've been around. People that didn't understand the Sun assigned a God to it, or how the seasons worked, ect. As we started learning about our world and its surrondings, we didn't need God's for everything.
So, please clue me in. In order for me to understand your conclusion based on the two facts that I've gathered from you, your going to have to explain it more.
>God is 100%. Man is not. <g>
How convienent.
>You cannot assert something as true (opinion) if you did not so believe.
Says who? If I have an opinion, I HAVE to believe that my opinion is the only one and the best one? That sounds like the beggining of something bad.
>Regardless, you do have a belief system. Perhaps you just call t somethign else but you can be assured you have one.
Thanks, glad you can think for me now *sigh*
>But that isn't saying that in order to be 'good' it must be a generalization. That's your error. There are absolutes. You just need to determine how to find them and what they are.
See, it was a joke. "All generalizations are bad" was a generalization itself, just like "There are no absolutes" is an absolute.
>IOW, you cannot say, "I don't know therefore I know." That is, you cannot say, "I don't know if god exists therefore he doesn't exist." That's a patently incorrect contradiction.
And I didn't say anything of the kind. Like I said, I don't spend my time worrying about if God exists or not. Wondering wether there is a god or not is like wondering if there are invisible gnomes that run around telling people what to do. I don't see any reason why I should spend more time considering the God question as the gnome question.
>If you take that route and He does not (not true but for this example) then after this life you're no better or worse off than if you had taken the route that He did not exist.
Exactly. The best reason (or pseduoreason) to believe in god is "It gives life meaning/hope/reason/ect.". Well, I say forget that. Like I said, I don't need supernatural entities to make life feel worthwhile. I do pretty good on my own. Basically, religion would be filling a whole that I don't have.
>OTOH, if you take the position that He does not exist and He does (He does - trust me) then you're going to have a problem...
I don't think he'd care. If he did, he probably would have staightened me out a while ago. I imagine that is there was a god, he'd be more thankful that I'm happy to be alive, no matter where I thought my life came from.
>This is irreduceably true. You will die some day. I will die some day. This issue will be dealt with and there is no avoiding it whatsoever. This is reality. Every single human wil face these issues and IMO it is far better to so do now and be prepared than later and not be prepared.
Don't get your hopes up. You spend your time preparing for the afterlife, and I'll spend mine leading the life I have. Then, wether or not there is an afterlife (I'm not thinking there is) I won't be dissapointed. You, on the other hand, might be.
When you believe in god, if someone tells you there is no life after death, and when you're dead, you're dead, for some reason, you tend to think life is less precious. Thats your problem, right there. If it turns out they are able to explain love at teh chemical level, does that make it any less enjoyable? Does that take the fun out of it? I don't think so. Those of you who give it some supernatural explanation do. Change that attitude (its hard, especially when you have beliefs in the way) and you'll be fine.
>Speaking of measurable results.. We got about 11 inches of powder here yesterday. If this storm hits you folks it's going to be a doozy!
We got 15 inches a couple weeks ago, but its mostly melted already. We could use a couple more feet up here.
>>>Paul stated that those who practiced this "would not inherit the kingdom of God", so I suppose that's a part of the basis why some think using drugs is immoral.
>>So... Jesus suggests we drink wine, but we won't be allowed into heaven by consuming the drug?
>No, He never suggested anything either way.
Lets try and clear this up. Didn't Jesus tell us to drink wine as his blood? Haven't we covered that fact that alcohol (the stuff in wine) is a drug? And didn't Paul say those who practiced drug use would not inherit the kingdom of god?
>>Hmmm, maybe this explains why it is ok to you for laws to be inconsistant. You've become desensitized to unfairness thanks to religion...
>I'd disagree. I think you're just looking for a way to rationalize your chosen lifestyle and you're sort of under the spell of "me first and always, no matter what anyone else thinks" kind of thinking.
Me first and always. Huh. I don't know what to say to that. Its pretty insulting though. The fact that I don't believe in your god means I'm naturally selfish. Who's under what spell here?
>The proper and official word for that belief system is hedonism.
I don't know, man. I've always thought people that say things like "You shoudl believe in God because then you can go to heaven and live in bliss" was more on track with hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidence of pain) than "Life is what you got and then you're dead". Thats just me though.
>No, that isn't true. Add of the expense of job injuries, auto wrecks, theft, lost work days etc and I'd bet you'll be quite surprised.
Most of the studies I've seen show that the major problems drugs lead to are only possible because they're illegal. Herion that only takes pennies to make can go for $150 because of the risk involved in selling it. Therefore, the users bottom out faster and more frequently. Thats why England is rethinking how it should be dealt with (which, remember is what started this thread, you read the link I posted, right?).
>Great question Mike. I suppose the answer is that man, as an aggregate, is incurably bent on self destruction. It is irrational, that's for sure.
Yes, some people are like that, it is unforunate. And thats why I don't mess with that stuff. But the people that do shouldn't be treated like murders and rapists. Especially when they're addicted to a substance that is very difficult to attain (compared to ciggerettes for example).
>The problem of legalizing substances doesn't remove the problems - it just legalizes them. People will still abuse these substances only now that they are legal the next step is that society (as an aggregate) will be asked to pick up the tab.
Society is picking up the tab for the war on drugs, its costing a fortune. When Sherrifs start refusing federal money for the war on drugs, you know that something isn't right with the current method.
>>Ok, give one simple, valid argument that proves there is a god.
>love
Hmmmm. I can't say I've seen a valid argument expressed in one word before. Care to symobolize that?
>Now, you return the favor: Give me one valid argument that explains the concept of love (not sex <g>) apart from God.
http://www.ravesafe.org/love.htmNot that I totally agree with it, but its what you asked for (unlike you giving me the word "love" as an argument).
>If man is just an animal and all that there is is a physical universe then the concept of love is a cruel hoax.
You're the one setting yourself up for disappointment. Its your decision.
