Tippaporn

“You’re a legend in your own mind.” — Harry Callahan Talk about sticking one's foot in one's mouth. Well done, Skeptic7. Well done.

Good post, Fat is a type of crazy. Yes, it's a difficult topic. As is the God concept. The first impressions that come to mind on both subjects can be guaranteed to not be the best. Both require a lot of thought and searching for true answers. Again, not many who are willing to devote the time and effort required to find those real answers. Most just spout off what comes off the top of their heads. I will maintain, though, that without love nothing would exist. I'm decades upon decades into this and though that doesn't guarantee that I know jack about jack it is an indication that I've spent the time and effort. And that is my sincere conclusion which I would not state if I didn't think it was correct. BTW, I have 10 cats presently. Cats are different than dogs. They do not trust nearly as readily as dogs do, which many people find frustrating and off putting. But if you're into cats, as I am, then you would know that they are extremely loving creatures. One of my cats is a nuzzler. If I put my face near hers she will continually rub her snout against my cheeks whilst purring loudly. Now that's love! In fact, my avatar is of a cat asleep on top a gate with a sign reading, "Beware of the dog." I identify with the cat. The sign gives warning of danger. Yet the danger is not immediate as the dog is not present. So the warning is meaningless and the cat understands that. However, if the dog were to appear the cat would quickly vanish. What my avatar represents is the cat reacts to immediate danger but not to imagined danger. People too often, much too often, react to imagined dangers. So my avatar itself is a statement which rails against the poor and unhealthy idea of reacting to imagined dangers.

Just a thought for you to entertain to keep your mind occupied whilst on your drive to Bkk . . . Not so much so that it takes your eyes off the road. Are they maps? Or is the idea that they're maps based on the assumption that you're going somewhere? Which implies a destination, an arriving, . . . an . . . . . . end. Hopefully you do have a map to get you to your end destination though, which is the embassy.

Thanks for the day off, Sunmaster. I've already noticed your absence on the God thread spin-off.

I would be so bold as to make this statement. We could not exist or survive in this world or any other without love. Love is the inherent basis of existence. To understand that statement does requires some thinking about it. Probably a whole lot of thinking. And it's true to say it requires more thinking than most would want to devote to it. Not a problem. Everyone has their own thing in this world. Not everyone has a great interest in understanding that statement. But, no workie, no rewardie. Also, it's not just humans who experience the emotion of love. Ever have a pet? Wouldn't that be 'evidence' that love is a universal thing?

As long as you don't question where the source of love comes from. I decided to quote myself along with yours because later edits have a tendency to get overlooked. Due to my defending God folks may interpret that erroneously and see me as a religious type. I am not. In fact I was raised a Catholic and it didn't take me long to see the many distortions of that religion. Whilst I do not believe in a God as he is depicted in religion I do, however, subscribe to the idea of God as a representation of something else. What that representation is is what I endeavour to find out for myself in this life. That's my personal intention and I understand full well, and more than anyone could imagine, that everyone in this world is here with their own intentions. That fact is simple reality. I have no issue whatsoever with it. In fact I even understand the why of why everyone has their own intentions. I'm here in defence of other people's belief in the existence of a religious God for a few reasons. One of which is that people have this idea that everything they believe to be true is indeed true. Granted they are not quite so firm in believing that all of their beliefs are true. After all, people do change their beliefs from time to time. But the general idea they subscribe to is quite strong nonetheless. Since I am aware that many of the ideas which people subscribe to and hold to be true are not true at all then I will be more than happy to point out where their ideas fail and why. Now I don't do this for the purpose of lecturing others, or to put myself on any kind of pedestal thereby raising myself above the heads of others, but only because I enjoy pushing poor and unhealthy ideas. Such as boys can be girls and girls can be boys and men can menstruate and get pregnant. Those are examples of poor and unhealthy ideas which are being promulgated extensively these days. I enjoy most of all to get people to think beyond their current thinking and take it to another level. Would anyone object to that? Here's a rich, healthy and true idea of which many are unaware: People are not their ideas. People only subscribe to and hold them as their own.

As long as you don't question where the source of love comes from.

For wat it's worth, I took the point of the post as noting the pointlessness of consumers at a restaurant, or the religious, debating and admonishing each other about what is the best food, or religious ideals, to consume. Since it is all food or all religion so let individual choice reign. Pineapple pizza or a Napoli pizza with traditional ingredients. It's all good. My point then noted that to the non religious, it is not comparing different foods, but food and an empty table. The religious sit at an objectively empty table and say they are, if you like, having a satisfying meal that only they can see. Or maybe others of a similar ilk feel they can see and may well see who knows. Of course I concur the religious should not be admonished or ridiculed or similar. But if they stand up and say, take my word that this is a thing or do these 5000 hours of meditation and you'll see it's a thing, it is not unreasonable that they get some hopefully polite debate and or pushback, about whether it is a thing, or evidence that doing the hard work leads to a thing. The analogy was meant only to highlight the obvious fact that people can't seem to get their noses out of what others are choosing for themselves. Only in the setting of a restaurant do people busy themselves only with what choices they want to make and freely allow others to make their own choices and pay them no mind. The analogy was given to illustrate the issue that non-believers insert themselves into the God thread conversation with no intention whatsoever of understanding anything other than what they understand and so their only purpose is to admonish and ridicule. Put succinctly, they only troll. They stick their noses into what others are choosing, no different than a religious fanatic sticking his nose into what you're choosing for yourself. You don't like it when it happens. And vice versa. Perhaps I did a poor job in my initial response to you but your editing of my analogy to include other diners coming to you to entice you to try their food, even if non-existent (insert bolded portion of your quote), and therefore they deserve pushback, doesn't work then. Does that make it clear? I'm asking respectfully, not snidely.

Why are you, presumably, clean shaven? Ask a silly question and get a silly answer. Since a lot of folks here share the sentiment that it's perfectly fine to troll, trash, and ridicule people for holding ideas that they deem are pure fantasy then shouldn't it also be perfectly fine to troll, trash, and ridicule people who act silly? Fair is fair, right? A serious answer, though, would be that God is an idea and because it appears to be human nature to personify everything then God was given a human image. And since that was done a couple of thousand years ago when razors weren't in prolific use they pasted a beard on him to make his image match their own. God was seen as cruel and powerful when man believed that these were desirable characteristics, needed particularly in his battle for physical survival. He projected these upon his idea of a god because he envied them and feared them. You have cast your idea of god, therefore, in your own image.

Perhaps if I were still in the west. But moving to Thailand solved the problem permanently. I like the Christmas spirit. And always will. So I'll do up Christmas in my own image per what it means to me. My family puts up a tree every year. And we wrap colourful lights around the staircase banister. I play Christmas music, mostly traditional, and rerun the classic Christmas movies, but never the contemporary ones that I consider do not capture the Christmas spirit, such as Bruce Willis' Die Hard. No presents as Thais exchange them for New Years. I do miss the snow. Most of all I miss eggnog. Anyone know where to find it during the holidays? I may be forced to find a recipe and make my own.

Sean Carroll hasn't thought things through. And so he appeals to others who haven't thought things through. How can I have the gall to say this? Because the holes in his logic are big enough to drive a universe through. I'd point them out individually but the sheer quantity of fallacious logic makes it too time consuming. Man, this dude makes a lot of assumptions. It'd be a pity if they're wrong.

Proof thing? What proof thing? Let's consider that by going a bit deeper, shall we? Your reasoning is based on a false assumption. The assumption is that everything can be proven. Well, yes and no. So to clarify. Everything can be proven but not everything can be proven by providing physical evidence. So to restate more accurately, your reasoning is based on the false assumption that everything can be proven with physical evidence, or in physical terms. Before you take offense at me for having the impudence to suggest that your assumption is wrong then consider this: Now I was just chided by @pomchop for being condescending as he interpreted me "to be pretending to "understand" something that others can't grasp" and having the temerity and hubris to think my thoughts run deeper than others. Well, in this case my thoughts do run deeper than those who think and believe that everything can be proven via physical evidence. Those who do believe that haven't thought it through yet. Now just because I have doesn't mean that I'm smarter, or deeper than anyone else. Anyone can think things through if they want and come to the same conclusions and therefore come to know what I know. It's simply stating a fact that I've thought things through on this issue whereas others have not yet. No judgement here; just an accurate assessment of reality. Perhaps the most obvious example that not everything can be proven is thoughts. Thoughts are purely subjective and not at all objective. Would it be possible to prove what someone is thinking via physical evidence? Not if the thoughts don't provide any physical evidence. "You handsum man." How many farang have been taken to the cleaners with that line? You could be with a Thai lady for years believing that she loves you despite the fact that she's only boning you dry and has a Thai guy on the side. For years there may be no physical evidence of her thoughts. But that physical evidence may come only after she's drained your bank account and left you high and dry as she skips town with her Thai true love. Then, and only then, will you have physical evidence of her thoughts. But never as long as she's keeping her thoughts private. Here's another example of what cannot be proven. Some people believe that life happens to you. Some people believe the opposite; that you create your life. Who is correct? Now prove it. You'll quickly find out that you cannot prove either theory to be either true or false. Which theory is correct can only be proven by you to yourself. And once you've proven it to yourself, whichever of the two doesn't matter, you will never be able to convince another by placing the physical evidence of proof in the palm of their hands. And so it is with God, or what God represents. Which is what Sunmaster was explaining. You couldn't process what he was telling you precisely because you held a false assumption that everything can be proven in physical terms. Once you understand that the assumption is false then, and only then, can you begin to understand what Sunmaster is explaining.

An idea. Granted, most who believe in God personify it. If I told you that God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real - nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action. Hmmm . . . I'm not so sure that my restaurant analogy can be stretched to include what you are implying to be delusional. If I experienced a situation like that I wouldn't question, admonish or ridicule. If someone is delusional then I'd take the safe route and leave 'em alone. I wouldn't involve myself in any way. Again, I don't think my analogy can extend to cover your scenario. Which would be equivalent to another diner coming over to your table to tell you how delicious their meal is and cajole you into tasting it when you don't like what they're eating. Sunmaster's point is that some folks come over to the God thread to complain about what's being eaten there by others. That is the equivalent of you stepping away from your table to complain about what they're eating. No one is forcing anyone to come over to the God thread to hear what anyone has to say. It's all free choice, as it is in a restaurant. Your tweaking of my analogy suggests what I wrote above . . . someone coming to your table to get you to eat, and enjoy, what they're eating. In which case questioning, admonishing or ridiculing is appropriate. But that's not the case here. Ozimoron admitted on this thread that he's going over to the God thread for the sole purpose of trolling. His words, not mine. Sunmaster is saying, hey, if you don't like what we're talking about then why come? No one invited you or forced you to be here.

Now don't be too harsh, pomchop. I'm just calling it as I see it. Same as you. I can't control anyone's reactions to my calls. If your interpretation of my initial post is that I'm lecturing then you're calling it as you see it. If you interpret my last post as condescending then you're calling it as you see it. Are your interpretations an accurate reflection of my intentions? I would say not - and I would be the one to know - but that wouldn't necessarily cause you to change your interpretation if I told you that, would it? Lots of people claim to know better what another is thinking than the person doing the actual thinking themselves know. There's scant I can do about that. My last post, for instance, was to make the simple point to you that anyone can interpret what another says or writes in any number of given ways. So was I lecturing or providing my insight in my first post? That's two ways to interpret what I wrote. You chose lecturing. Was I really attempting to lecture or is that only the way you perceived it? Since I know what my intention was then I know which of the two is correct. Have you ever taken an action in your life with little thought and have it go south on you? Only afterwards did you think things through and then realised that had you thought it through before you took the action that you wouldn't have taken the action that you did? Everyone's experienced that and I'd guarantee that you have as well. That's an example where thinking it through equates to deeper thinking. You become aware of more than what you were initially aware of. And that greater awareness would have altered your course. Lots of folks who express their ideas of God haven't thought it through and take action by expressing ill informed opinions. I'm not judging that - as I said there's no right or wrong about it. I'm just calling it like I see it. And what I see I call my insight.

@Sunmaster Great response, Sunmaster. But I'll have to get back to you tomorrow. I've been on a schedule of getting up between midnight and 2 AM and since you started the spin-off of the God thread, like the spin-off of a popular TV sitcom , I've spent too many hours entertaining myself there. (BTW, how did you like my restaurant analogy? I've used it here before, as you know. Still, I thought it put the entire issue into proper perspective.) Anyway, I, too, very much appreciate your perspectives. I have no doubt that I harbour my own bias to an extent at times and I'm only too cognizant of it and therefore I try to be as careful as I can. Bis zum Morgen.

People are funny, ain't they?

I can't help but laugh as I imagine some of the posters here sitting at their tables, unable to stop fidgeting uncomfortably, restless in their seats as they're trying to enjoy their meal, grim faced with scowls and snarling rage as they espy the patron next to them eating a holy wafer and washing it down with wine.

Long ago I came across a great analogy which fits perfectly into this thread. It was told by someone this way: The only time everyone gives two hoots about what anyone else chooses for themselves is in a restaurant. In the hypothetical restaurant of the analogy you get a menu with every conceivable food item on it. You peruse the menu and what you don't like you skim over and focus only on what you do like. And order just that. But in this amazing restaurant rather than the menu offering food it offers you ideas. And again, every conceivable idea which exists is listed. Again you skim over the ideas you don't like and focus only on the ideas you do like. And you order just that. Now imagine, the next time you go out to eat, walking around the restaurant going to every table to criticise, ridicule, admonish, and spew hate on all of the patrons for what they're eating. But . . . only if they're eating what you wouldn't choose for yourself. And patting everyone who is eating what you prefer on the back and calling them 'friend'. Isn't that what's happening here?

I hear ya, Old Croc. I've always told friends back home that one of the huge benefits of being in Thailand was that I could escape Christmas. Now I do enjoy the spirit of Christmas but that doesn't have to be a religious experience replete with all of the baggage. Good will to all men is a noble aspiration even apart from religion. But I'm beyond believing in the concept of saviours. There's no one gonna save me from myself except myself. Exchanging presents was probably one of the things I hated most. Even if you could afford to put everyone on your list the trouble was always thinking of what to buy someone that wouldn't end up in the rubbish bin the day after New Year's. That and the embarrassment of giving someone a $5 gift and receiving a $50 gift from them. Now I'm a generous guy but when Christmas forces you to be generous I have a problems with it. And if that's all Christmas is about - getting presents - then the meaning is completely lost. Cheers mate!

The same response applies. Their belief is unfounded to you. Be a bit more accurate. Not supported by either evidence or logic that you can perceive. Unless you want to claim to all here and now that the only thing which exists if that which you personally perceive or can make sense of. And so anything which anyone else is able to perceive and make sense of, which you don't, is therefore not valid. Wouldn't that make you a god of sorts when you place yourself in the position, self anointed, where you are the only one who can declare what is real and what is not based solely on your limited perception and understanding? Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning becomes when you take it to it's logical conclusion?

I still love ya dearly, Old Croc. You know that. Good to see you still around. Hope you and the family had a wonderful Christmas and New Year holiday. Now forgive me, Old Croc, but I can't resist this one. Whose birthday did you celebrate this past Christmas? One of your family members?

Their unfounded belief? Their belief is unfounded to you. Be a bit more accurate.

That was an interesting way of calling a poster an idiot. In indirect fashion, which then hopefully doesn't put you afoul of the rules.

Voltaire was being sarcastic. He means God WAS invented. In one of his many denunciations of priests of every religious sect, Voltaire describes them as those who "rise from an incestuous bed, manufacture a hundred versions of God, then eat and drink God, then piss and <deleted> God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire Are you sure. Or did you misinterpret? I think it obvious. Voltaire was an advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. In February 1778, Voltaire returned to Paris for the first time in over 25 years, partly to see the opening of his latest tragedy, Irene. The five-day journey was too much for the 83-year-old, and he believed he was about to die on 28 February, writing "I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition." Voltaire wasn't fond of established religion. These, along with his Letters on the English, mark the beginning of Voltaire's open criticism of intolerance and established religions. Voltaire and the Marquise also explored philosophy, particularly metaphysical questions concerning the existence of God and the soul. Voltaire and the Marquise analyzed the Bible and concluded that much of its content was dubious. Voltaire's critical views on religion led to his belief in separation of church and state and religious freedom, ideas that he had formed after his stay in England.

Petal as in a flower? But that wouldn't be a verb. Or did you mean pedal as in bicycling? Either way it makes no sense to me. Therefore I can't give you a response.