Tippaporn

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.

There's a difference between 'lecture' and 'insight'. Seems there's little that's not open to personal interpretation. Was that last statement 'lecture' or 'insight'? What's your interpretation?

True. Same can be said about death.

Bis später!

Only a portion of your entire identity is "presently" familiar to you, as you know. Therefore, when you consider the question of a supreme being, you imagine a male personality with those abilities that you yourselves possess, with great emphasis upon qualities you admire. This imagined god has therefore changed throughout your centuries, mirroring man's shifting ideas of himself. 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. In a reality that is inconceivably multidimensional, the old concepts God are relatively meaningless. Even the term, a supreme being, is in itself distortive, for you naturally project the qualities of human nature on 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 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 that God is less than real - nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action. If you can't make sense of the above then the concept of God will no doubt escape you even if given a definition of God. What God is actually defies all attempts to define it. This subject matter is for people whose thoughts run quite a bit deeper. If they don't then that's fine. There's no right or wrong about it. Just don't expect to understand something when you're not interested in understanding it. You obviously won't.

Frye would probably sh!t himself if he were in front of God. Just joking. Again, Frye is just another who doesn't understand why awful things exist for us and would blame God for his miseries. Yeah, I use a laughing emoticon but I do understand the difficulty of understanding why 'bad' things exist. It ain't easy given the beliefs people have. Actually, given the beliefs people have is precisely what makes it impossible to understand.

God is a representation of the existence of more than what we are aware of. Which awareness for most extends to this world and the self in the mirror only. Gods come and go, as everyone knows by just a cursory reading of human history, but what they represent is continually expressed despite the particular label applied. Every god that's accepted today will eventually be sent to the "old god's home" and be replaced by another, new one. Like it or not, agree with it or not, but you can't change it.

"It's fair game to troll . . ." And there's your outright admission that those who disagree agree with you are therefore fair game to troll. No I do believe that trolling is against forum rules. Which makes it astounding that you would actually admit to it outright on the forum.

". . . about religious nutcases?" There's the proof in your own words that you're simply trolling when you go on that thread. You don't believe in God and that's fine. But the idea that others do is like a stick up yer <> that causes discomfort everytime the idea pops into your head and you then just can't resist the urge to disparage them so it gives a bit of relief to your discomfort. So, if your only purpose in posting in that thread is to disparage the believers then . . . you're frickin' trolling.

I don't see Sunmaster as distorting the question at all. I do, however, see you distorting it, due to having a false yet unspoken premise. An atheist asking that question couldn't even begin to answer it in the event that God did exist and babies are born with disabilities. The premise behind the question is that if God existed he'd never allow it. The premise is faulty. Which makes the question absurd.