Your view and why it's correct

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I see what you are trying to say now....
Correct me if I'm wrong.



Your concepts explores the relationship between the postmodern discourse of abstract communication and quantum syntax.
With influences as diverse as Camus and Donald Duck [ala the quack quack meme] new variations are distilled from both simple and complex dialogues.
As your avatar and handle imply by the theoretical limits of the universe, What starts out as hope soon becomes corrupted into a tragedy of futility, leaving only a sense of chaos and the dawn of a new reality.
As wavering ideas become frozen through studious and academic dialog, the observer is left with an insight into the limits of our culture.

FlyersFan

DeadSeraph
Then why author religious themed threads?

Because the forum is there. My statement stands.
The religion forum is always trouble on chat sites.
Chat sites run better when they dump the religion forums.
That's been my experience elsewhere.

So sorry that you are having a hard time accepting that.
But there it is.

I don't have a hard time accepting your opinion. That doesn't make it a fact, however. While things might get out of hand in a religious discussion, the topic serves a clear purpose on ATS despite the protest of you and other members.

People who have a problem with the subject matter should just do themselves a favor and stay out of the threads. Most of the people who have a problem with the subject matter are the ones causing the problems in the first place. There are forums for everything from music to automotive topics and everything in between. Just because religion rubs some people the wrong way is no reason to censor the rest of us who enjoy discussing certain religious related issues with each other here.

I still find it odd that someone who is so active in the aforementioned forums wants to see the subject removed altogether from ATS. Seems a bit hypocritical.

drivers1492
reply to post by eisegesis

 

While I have no idea what your trying to say I enjoyed the way it was presented especially the spidey pic.

At any given moment, life is completely senseless. But viewed over a period, it seems to reveal itself as an organism existing in time, having a purpose, trending in a certain direction.


Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

In the words of physicist Paul Davies in his book The Cosmic Blueprint (1988):

There is no detailed blueprint, only a set of laws with an inbuilt facility for making interesting things happen. The universe is free to create itself as it goes along. The general pattern of development is "predestined", but the details are not. Thus, the existence of intelligent life at some stage is inevitable; it is, so to speak, written into the laws of nature. But man as such is far from preordained.

I hope this helps fix any confusion.
The Ultimate Paradigm Shift

The image of God playing dice with the Universe was threatening and fearful to the old scientists, even the great ones like Einstein, who incidentally grew up in a civil law system. But that was only because they did not understand the order lurking in Chaos, the great beauty inherent in chance. For we now know that it is only through chance that new and unpredictable relationships can be created, entities can self organize to further evolution and create entirely new symmetries and coherence.

God's dice liberates us from the prison of determinism, the hopeless tedium of the cosmic clock and the inevitable death of entropy. We have instead an intelligent Universe, where ever new and evolving life forms thrive on Chaos, where entropy creates higher order from decaying forms. The clock is not winding down as the second law of thermodynamics had thought, it is ever being created anew. God is back in the picture, not just as the creator of the machine who then left- the ghost in the machine - but as the Strange Attractor, the origin of inexplicable and unpredictable order from chance.

This paragraph below explains my thought process at the moment. Others might want to evaluate their beliefs and loosen that grip just a little. Don't be afraid to walk the path alone. You will discover things you never new about yourself.

This is a new kind of order, a "fractal order," based on a relatively few basic structural principals from which many transitory laws follow. The Laws of Wisdom we must learn for the journey to self realization are flexible, evolving. Like the common law, they are articulated afresh moment by moment, case by case. The laws are stable, but they do not stand still. Exactly how the basic principals will apply to form governing laws all depends upon the circumstances, the consciousness involved, the entities, the case.

The free will of the individual in connection with the infinite is now primary. All is not determined, everyone-has a chance to decide their own fate. The philosophic implications of Chaos are positive and encouraging. The Universe is not a clock, its a game. Enjoy it!

Everybody's beliefs are meaningless and pointless. This post is only to help point that out for some and not entirely for you. I hope people get the point.

reply to post by eisegesis


1 + 1 = 2 (true)

and I know I'm right

SisyphusRide
reply to post by eisegesis

 

1 + 1 = 2 (true)

and I know I'm right

In theory, you are correct. As a symbol, 1+1=2 can exist, but in the physical world, 1 pencil + 1 pencil does not equal 2 because the pencil is just a symbol. We construct it from smaller pieces, give it shape and value. The pencil does not equal 1. It does because we value it as 1 when in my reality, it is not 1 piece. If you had the ability to look into the pencil, your eyes would be taken on a journey, piece after piece of geometric atoms of graphene. Whether it is intelligent design or not is the question.

Here's soothing that I ask my friends:

How do you think your current views would have been shaped if you had the ability to see more wavelengths of light than we can currently see now while growing up?


Answer?

The universe would look like an extremely bewildering place. Unless your brain was altered so that it could interpret the new information that it was receiving, everything would be a confused and meaningless morass of color and brightness. In this case, it would probably be best to just keep your eyes closed (or maybe get fancy-fancy eye-patches).

Tetrachromacy

We are limited by are own instruments.

reply to post by eisegesis


where chaos ends... order begins! and it's beautiful
Order Theory

Carl Sagan - Contact (Read by Jodie Foster)

reply to post by eisegesis


^ "but it's real... they should have sent a poet" -Carl Sagan

How do you think your current views would have been shaped if you had the ability to see more wavelengths of light than we can currently see now while growing up?

but the above comment isn't real... truth is real, 1 + 1 = 2 is truth = order

this is real... don't look at it too long or you won't be seeing no spectrum!

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I understand what you were trying to say now. That makes sense and I do agree with you. I am not making the suggestion anyone should hold their tongue as far as an opinion or view on a matter at all. What I am saying is there is a productive way to express ones views as well as ones opposite opinion of a view without expressing a level of contempt(for lack of a better word atm).

It's very true that when you think you have a level of understanding that seems so simple it can be frustrating when you can't get your point across. I struggle with not getting irritated in that situation if it continues during an interaction.

reply to post by eisegesis

Interesting views and quotes. The philosophical views expressed I would tend to agree with overall yet for the most part I don't find them useful for me personally. At least not in the way described. Our existence, as I have come to see it, has purpose. Yet that purpose when viewed say on a cosmic scale may be miniscule, it does still exist. The thing is that purpose is not guided or provided by a supreme being. The point presented in this quote you had

the existence of intelligent life at some stage is inevitable; it is, so to speak, written into the laws of nature

would describe my view perfectly. Those laws alluded to in that sentence in a indirect way show our purpose or reason for existing. It doesn't show our path in that second of existence only why. The logic of it makes more sense for me there than the philosophy.

reply to post by drivers1492

My questions do not apply to things such as misunderstanding a words meaning or something simple but more the basis of the faith or tenants of that faith are called into question.

I think that criticism to the point of stepping out of political correctness is appropriate when it comes to dealing with invasive beliefs that seem to be coming from an agenda to brainwash the masses into a new world order religion to make compliant mind-sets to subjugate the world to a tyrannical system.

I think that criticism to the point of stepping out of political correctness is appropriate when it comes to dealing with invasive beliefs that seem to be coming from an agenda to brainwash the masses into a new world order religion to make compliant mind-sets to subjugate the world to a tyrannical system.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Could you possibly give me an example? The reason I ask is many look at any faith as what your describing above and I do not. If your referring to extremes then I would be inclined to agree but I don't see religion as a whole being used in that way. I do see it perverted and used like that in some cases that can't be denied.

reply to post by drivers1492

Could you possibly give me an example?

It manifests itself (sometimes) in the thing that you were describing, the meanings of words, where I think that often they are deliberately misinterpreted.
A specific example might be what I recently started a thread on, which is the use of the slogan, "the wages of sin".
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Some people believe that it means that you are accumulating a "sin debt".

jmdewey60
reply to post by drivers1492

 

Could you possibly give me an example?

It manifests itself (sometimes) in the thing that you were describing, the meanings of words, where I think that often they are deliberately misinterpreted.
A specific example might be what I recently started a thread on, which is the use of the slogan, "the wages of sin".
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Some people believe that it means that you are accumulating a "sin debt".

edit on 16-12-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Sorry for the late reply. I see what your saying although I think that many times the accusation of a deliberate misinterpretation is not true. It's simply a mistake or brought to that understanding by someone else who was wrong. People who are opposition to ones understanding of texts seem so freely to toss out the words agenda, sheep, drinking kool aid and the like when it's not the case. I'm sure this may be mainly here on ATS simply by the theme of the site. So my question would be is how do you judge when to switch gears and be non pc with someone. Honestly you have to make an assumption about their intent or understanding to make the accusation to give you the right switch gears correct? Don't misunderstand, I by no means imply that it doesn't happen but I do see an almost immediate escalation in many cases simply because the view is considered wrong by the other party. It's counterproductive to a learning and meaningful conversation and never seems to have any constructive value. While realizing that sometimes a person you encounter is just looking to fight and if that is the case one is free to respond in a like manner if they feel its justified, or simply recognize it as a waste of time and walk away.

reply to post by drivers1492

It's simply a mistake or brought to that understanding by someone else who was wrong.

Right, but the person who originated this interpretation could have made it up intentionally.

I watched a video a while back now, of this guy preaching to an audience of people with apparently a superficial knowledge of the Bible, and I could see how he was deliberately being deceptive, pushing some weird world view that is an obvious diversion from what is really happening.
The person who linked the video on a thread did not make up these misinterpretations, but the guy who he was believing, did.

Right, but the person who originated this interpretation could have made it up intentionally. I watched a video a while back now, of this guy preaching to an audience of people with apparently a superficial knowledge of the Bible, and I could see how he was deliberately being deceptive, pushing some weird world view that is an obvious diversion from what is really happening. The person who linked the video on a thread did not make up these misinterpretations, but the guy who he was believing, did.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Exactly my point is your first line, (could have). I've seen what I believe deliberate deception also and it bothers me as well. In most cases outside of a cult style environment those deceptions are purely to emotionally charge the listener which in turn opens up a pocketbook a little wider. The bad part is the one who was deceived wasn't aware and shouldn't be addressed in a poor manner for that misunderstanding. Thats all I'm trying to say. You and I are pretty much in agreement on that I believe.

I am agnostic but brought up with science. So I will take on the latest theory until a better one comes along. This means having a flexible view though.

I do think our relationship with religion has changed as more and more people are surviving to an older age. Only 150 years ago, half the people died in the UK in their young years- so we would have question the meaning of life more deeply. And religion would have supported us to come to terms with such sad events. Just my thoughts.

reply to post by drivers1492


My second sentence is my view on religion.

My first sentence is my view on religion.

reply to post by eisegesis


Interesting. Of late I have considered that the next stage of our journey may quite simply be the opening fully of all our senses.

I looked for many years, searching for God, or maybe more realistically to find the core belief that others seemed to have. I thought I was missing out on some obvious truth.

Now I have made peace with the fact that I will simply never know until it is time to know. I see us as frogs in the pond believing the pond is our universe, creating science and truths that 'fit' within our pond. Totally unaware of the park the pond is located in. The micro and macro is baffling my brain an awful lot. I heard the pond metaphor many moons ago but it struck me even then that it was so apt for the human race on planet Earth, trying to work it all out but how can we when we don't have all the information and neither the tools to decipher such information.

I have had my own personal encounters that for me confirm something other than ourselves and something with such love for us that hell and damnation seem quite silly. I felt a love from the brightest light that is incomparable to any love I have encountered myself and if you knew how much I love my son that is saying something. I would die for my son.

I have probably found more peace since accepting my own limitation of understanding. God, the higher power, the fabric of the universe is far beyond what I can perceive with the limited range of understanding I have been given. Which leads me to the point that I believe we haven't been given the tools to 'work it out' because at this point we are not supposed to.

I believe some are more in tune with themselves and can tap into energies around us, I believe we experience the same oneness, in many forms, through different perspectives and given different labels.

The only way to show our 'faith' is to live by the principles we claim are true for all. I have met many people claiming to be of a faith and have been astounded at their behaviour. In my mind, if you know your God is all seeing and knowing, then wouldn't you at least try and live accordingly?
I have also known ( admittedly not as many as the former) some who really have lived a life that at least tries to live in accordance with given beliefs. I may not have their faith but I know for a fact that they believe it 100%.

Life is fluid as is our learning and life experience. My beliefs are not solid and will change and reconsider when something new is learned, seen or even felt. I don't really consider any religion 'wrong', rather it is the ones who interpret it. As mentioned earlier, I also believe ' all roads lead to Rome'.

Some folks just might know a short cut .... Problem is I can't work out which folks ......

reply to post by PurpleHorizon



Thank you for a very "sensible" post.

''your view and why its correct''.... It may sound obvious but I think most of us have our views because it feels ''correct'' to us. But thats actually a good question to ask people in the business of proselytizing. I just post my views here because ATS offers a somewhat neutral platform to discuss a wide variety of religious subjects. _________________________________________Like politics, when it comes to religion, groups are going to stick together on the basis of what they believe or disbelieve. So in that respect being ''correct'' on here isn't the same kind of ''being correct'' at a math problem, where your opponent has no choice but to admit being wrong if he doesn't get it right.