Religion anyone?

solo · 9 Oct 2008, 14:57

Lets mix it up a little.

Miracles for sale?

[flash=425,355:3n5atrk3]http://www.youtube.com/v/P4_CYVGN15E[/flash:3n5atrk3]

[flash=425,355:3n5atrk3]http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2HbQ1JdZuA&feature=related[/flash:3n5atrk3]

pbacot · 9 Oct 2008, 15:03

and a last thought. can you describe love as a drug? because I am really high, when I am in love. when I break up with someone after a serious relationship, I suffer for a serious withdrawal syndrom for some time...

Been there too, plot. They've already isolated some of the peptides that course through your body while "in love". We have to separate the high and the addiction from the core of our devotion. It is hard to do, and I've said "never again" multiple times. Experience both the temporal and spiritual highs, but one endures.

pbacot · 9 Oct 2008, 15:08

LOL

Wish the second video quality were better. I like the organ swell after they announce how much money he got. Then when they announce how he used the money, I thought they were going to talk about the "good works" he did, but no, he goes out and buys a car! That's entertainment.

plot-paris · 9 Oct 2008, 15:14

wow! you really always manage to get these little gems, solo.

do you by any chance happen to know if they sell these "Miracle Manna" biscuits with chocolate coating?

solo · 9 Oct 2008, 15:28

Here is another ... love the part where the guy counts money on his bed rejoicing "Jesus has been good to me tonight".

[flash=425,355:2b4iu3mz]http://www.youtube.com/v/wo0eqDcKY08&feature=related[/flash:2b4iu3mz]

RickW · 9 Oct 2008, 15:31

@plot-paris said:

I have two questions, that I always have been uncomfortable with and that could break lose some new discussions:

my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
(I allways refused this idea, because it is depressing. but I think to a certain extend he is right. on the other hand, when love goes beyond life, when someone is willing to take up punishment or pain to protect others (the "parents protecting children" thing again)... doesn't that go beyond selfish love?)

Selfish "love" isn't really love. So, what are the characteristics of true love? Love is patient and kind, not jealous or boastful or proud. Love is not self-seeking, nor easily angered, and it does not keep a record of wrongs. Love embraces truth. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. We sometimes put our trust in people, governments, economies, jobs, relationships, investments, speculations, and all kinds of things that will eventually let us down. But love remains. There may be pain in unrequited love, or love lost, but true love perseveres, conquering the selfish false-love that would become angry, bitter, or despondent.

(my paraphrase of the Apostle Paul's description of love )

Alan Fraser · 9 Oct 2008, 15:44

Scary videos.

plot-paris · 9 Oct 2008, 15:53

well, I am afraid to really answer my own question of whether love is selfish or not we have to refer to the dear old greeks and their different variations of love (earlier mentioned Eros, Agape, Filia, Caritas...).

but another question (that I already answered for myself) jumps to my mind:

Do you distinguish between "I love you" and "I am in love with you"?

(I do. if I have a crush on someone, it is mostly defined by desire and perhaps curiosity. when things go further and you are like on drugs when with the other and absolutely devastated when without... thats what I call "being in love with someone.
finally, after months of a relationship, when you deeply know the other and when the first wave of "being in love" is not as strong and confusing anymore, you will know, if you love the other.
during a long relationship "being in love" may subside at some point and come back at another. but love is the deep feeling that is always there)

boofredlay · 9 Oct 2008, 16:29

Pete, don't spend too much time searching for this junk or you might get sucked in.

Here is one I saw years ago. There are many more versions but this one is the first... the classic... the
FARTING PREACHER.

[flash=425,355:2ghgdky9]http://www.youtube.com/v/6waXPTSrGiA[/flash:2ghgdky9]

solo · 9 Oct 2008, 16:48

LMFAO.

I thought something stinks.

anyone notice the telephone numbers? there are so many Dallas numbers, no wonder I am anti religion, it's everywhere you look.

JuanV.Soler · 9 Oct 2008, 18:31

@plot-paris said:

my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that
we only treat people around us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!

%(#FF0000)[And because it is selfish it has then no value.
Because we have to be non selfish. ] I am familiar with that discourse.
IT IS A WAY TO DESTROY ONE´S SELF CONFIDENCE

Love occurs.

We treat people around us with love to receive the same treatment in return ?

How can we manage the Love ?
Love occurs, happens, it can not be guided.
There is no need to be worried about that

It does not belong to us

RickW · 9 Oct 2008, 20:49

Just some observations:

I notice all the anti-Christian posts (not just here) and wonder that these are often the same people who claim to be tolerant and enlightened. Elsewhere in the Corner Bar, a politically-themed thread got temporarily locked down due to a "racist" image and some personal attacks. And I suspect that, had someone posted a video entitled "the farting negro", the outrage would likewise be flowing (and rightly so). But no mention of "hate-speech" when the game is Christian-bashing.

I also notice that no one has posted any anti-Muslim (or anti-Hindu, or anti-Buddhist, or anti-Semitic, etc, etc) content, so who will step up and be the first to engage in some equal-opportunity religion-bashing?

It's an interesting study in inconsistency - especially given the questions about love.

solo · 9 Oct 2008, 21:02

Rick

I am not a religion hater, I am a religious, fundemental, dogmatic freak of any denomination or religion hater, (no discrimination between them) and you are not one. I tolerate religion and in some cases even approve if it means instilling morals to a person that common sense and upbringing did not provide, and as long as they do not impose their beliefs on me or my family.

cornel · 9 Oct 2008, 23:23

“How can we manage the Love ?”

Being ‘correct’…!?!:

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10)

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Cornel

RickW · 10 Oct 2008, 04:24

I guess I should refrain from overbroad generalizations, eh?

tim · 10 Oct 2008, 04:30

@rickw said:

J But no mention of "hate-speech" when the game is Christian-bashing.

I also notice that no one has posted any anti-Muslim (or anti-Hindu, or anti-Buddhist, or anti-Semitic, etc, etc) content, so who will step up and be the first to engage in some equal-opportunity religion-bashing?

Ah, good old Fatwah Envy.

tim · 10 Oct 2008, 04:43

@remus said:

@tim said:

argh! Nonsense. A theory is NOT that. For goodness' sake try to at least read some serious philosophy of science before you make daft claims like that.

Id be interested to hear what you think the definition of a scientific theory is.

It doesn't matter a damn what I think a theory is - there's a large, rigorous, well argued body of literature on the subject. For a very basic introduction, try "what is this thing called science" by Alan Chalmers.

@unknownuser said:

But their are people who have had better ideas, and have subsequently thought of better theories than others. I think this is the sort of person alan was talking about, rather than some all seeing scientists who dishes out theories by popular demand. [?quote]
Perhaps you are right - but my experience is that most people making that argument are treating Great Scientists as a proxy deity. You see this spectacular idiocy a lot whenever evolution comes up "the god of evolution, Darwin" and other pathetic fallacies.

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

What? Where on earth do you get that idea from? Certainly not from any serious scientific source. There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light.

Do you know what gravity is, at the most fundamental level?

Irrelevant - the fact that I do or don't know something like that has nothing whatsoever to do with my statement.

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

What gibberish. If it were the case that 'would require more energy than exists in the entire universe' then it couldn't be that way - not to mention that you are abusing the terms 'forever' and 'infinite distances' horribly.

Not a fan of the fundamental forces then?

Again, irrelevant. Whether I'm on first name terms with Mr. StrongForce or Ms.ElectroWeak has nothing to do with anything. The original statement was gibberish of the form that often flows from people that know bugger all about physics.

A good example, again from the constant stream of IDiocy wrt evolution - "well, the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution". No It Doesn't. Learn some physics. Look up in the sky at that big glowing ball (yeah, ok, we didn't see it today on Vancouve Island, get over it) - it provides energy. If you don't see the connection - Learn Some Physics.

remus · 10 Oct 2008, 05:56

@tim said:

It doesn't matter a damn what I think a theory is - there's a large, rigorous, well argued body of literature on the subject. For a very basic introduction, try "what is this thing called science" by Alan Chalmers.

Well youve told me what a scientific theory isnt, and i havent read much to the contrary, so i think a brief explanation of what you think scientific theory is wouldnt be amiss, seeing as it's contrary to a lot of people's definition.

@unknownuser said:

Irrelevant - the fact that I do or don't know something like that has nothing whatsoever to do with my statement.

Alan said "Basically we don't have a clue other than it appears to be intimately related to both space and time." You said that was wrong, so presumably you know whats actually happening.

@unknownuser said:

Again, irrelevant. Whether I'm on first name terms with Mr. StrongForce or Ms.ElectroWeak has nothing to do with anything. The original statement was gibberish of the form that often flows from people that know bugger all about physics.

Well it seemed pretty accurate to me. Feel free to correct it though.

plot-paris · 10 Oct 2008, 08:08

you are right, Alan. it is important, that we carefully read the statements of others and respond to them, directly answer questions instead of stating something that has no relevance. we are no politicians after all

about the "anti christian" video of the farting priest, RickW: well, this guy is just so ridiculously funny - someone had to make fun of him. and I think this is one of those guys who are responsible, that many people have an aversion to the christian church.

and the question, why many of the comments here are confronting christian religion... I think the most important reason is that many of us here have grown up in a christian country and the only real contact and confrontation they had was with this religion.
of course I think we could have this discussion with another religion as focus as well.

and one last thought: I think that many of the last posts tried to impress with scientific facts. but I believe that will to as much good to the discussion as Corel's bible quotations.
no offence, Corel, but you will not be able to convince people who believe in science by repeating lines out of a book, hundrets of years old, that are even more difficult to understand when not read in context.
of course it is quite difficult because the different point of views are quite far apart. but I am afraid any other approach than a philosophical won't work here...

Alan Fraser · 10 Oct 2008, 12:30

Tim, are you being deliberately obtuse or what?
What is gibberish about the term "...would require more energy than exists in the universe."

For example, "To accelerate a particle of matter up to and beyond the speed of light would require more energy (according to Einstein's famous formula) than exists in the entire universe." This is a perfectly valid statement that explains why c...the speed of light...is a universal limiter; and why only particles with no mass, such as neutrinos or gravitons can travel at or close to the speed of light.

That phrase that you are getting on your high horse about merely illustrates a state of impossibility. No state can require that much energy, so such a state is therefore impossible. Not a difficult concept to grasp, one would have thought...but apparently we need to make an exception in your case.

Fred Hoyle, the Astronomer Royal, one of the most eminent scientists of his day and the man responsible for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis...the idea that stars act as factories for the production of the heavier elements...firmly believed that the Big Bang theory was misguided and that the Universe existed in what he termed a "Steady State". Ironically, it was he who actually first coined the term Big Bang.

Note, he didn't dispute that the universe was expanding...he'd done much to prove that it was...he just disputed that it had a beginning, as that would imply a creator....and he was an atheist. Note also that there are perfectly viable models that can explain expansion without tracing it back to an ultimate point of creation. Does that make him an idiot, someone who needs to "..learn some physics", worthy of your patronising attitude and gibes about Special Crystals and Holy Water?

He was mistaken; the Penzias-Wilson discovery of microwave background radiation proved that (probably).

That was my whole point about scientific theory...that very few scientists at the cutting edge are correct 100% of the time...and that anyone with any sense recognises that their theories and hypotheses may be proved wrong, or at least in need of adaptation, at some point in the future.
Your learned and apparently thoroghly researched reaction to this simple point was "Aargh! Nonsense."

The whole Quantum Field Theory relies on purely theoretical particles, some of which may in time prove to be just that...merely theoretical. I am happy for you, that you are so sure about scientific certainty. You seem to be casting me in the role of some religious mystic instead of someone who has no time for Creationist nonsense and the like. Did you read ANY of my comments on this and similar threads, or do you prefer pulling comments out of context and turning them 180 degrees?

I write this:
Sure, we can model it (gravity) mathematically in precise detail
...we can send spacecraft to slingshot their way from planet to planet and end at a destination with near pinpoint accuracy...but we don't know what it actually IS.

You reply with this:
Did you know that Newtonian mechanics is adequate for handling probes to Pluto etc?

Is it really? That's not at all certain. For starters, it doesn't explain the deceleration anomaly of Pioneer 10 and 11 as they passed Uranus...and to which conventional physics (read Newtonian) has no answer whatsoever. Amongst the factors already considered and ruled out are:-
Nominal thermal radiation and plutonium half-life...and
Drifting clocks, general relativity and the speed of gravity.
Clever bugger old Isaac, wasn't he...relativity and radioctive half-life way back then?

But even if it were true, what's that got to do with my statement? It just seems to be some patronising soundbite, like the rest of your response. It still doesn't explain what gravity actually is or how it's propagated.

Like Modelhead, I don't get it. What's your point, other than just being a confrontational smart arse?

The only point I was trying to make in that post you took such exception to you felt the need to quote me multiple times, was summed up in the final paragraph...that the universe is too weird to rule out anything.
Rather more elegantly, at a conference in Brussels in 2005, Nobel Prizewinner David Gross stated "We are in a period of utter confusion...These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes...we are missing something fundamental."

Obviously you know better than Nobel laureats in Physics. That being the case, I bow to your vastly superior intellect and now withdraw from this pissing contest.