Do you believe in God and why

[save the frogs]

UFOlogist Jacques Vallee on UFOs:  "There is some form of consciousness out there that is teaching us something."

 

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

The placebo effect, the schmacebo effect.  As long as it works what's the complaint?

 

Because such a belief system can also have harmful effects, known as the Nocebo effect, which is the opposite of Placebo.
When two different religious groups engage in war, it's at least partly because each group has a Nocebo effect on the other group.

 

Why?  Tough nut to crack in a singular objective world.  Might it have anything to do with that other world?  You know, that subjective one?  The one that you ignore?  Question:  What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? 

 

I don't know why you think that scientific enquiry ignores the subjective world. The subjective world and the objective world are inseperable. This is why it is impossible to be 100% objective and unbiased, because everything we experience or think about is fundamentally related to, and influenced by, our basic characteristics as a Homo Sapien species.

 

Every experience, smell, taste, feeling, sight, hearing and thought process, is an interpretation in the human mind. Some interpretaions are considered to be correct, when they work consistently, and many are considered incorrect because they don't work consistently.

 

The so-called spiritualists, often claim that science in general focuses on the material world, and ignores the non-material world. This is obviously not correct, because the Electromagnetic Spectrum, is non-material, that is, it has no mass. The Photon has no mass, yet everyone with eyesight experiences the effects of this non-material, massless energy, which science has been investigating for centuries.

 

Of course, science cannot investigate things which it cannot detect, but it can examine the processes that take place in the mind using techniques such as 'Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)', and Electroencephalography, or EEG. Such proceses are limited, but will presumably improve in the future.

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The so-called spiritualists, often claim that science in general focuses on the material world, and ignores the non-material world. This is obviously not correct, because the Electromagnetic Spectrum, is non-material, that is, it has no mass. The Photon has no mass, yet everyone with eyesight experiences the effects of this non-material, massless energy, which science has been investigating for centuries

When we talk about the material world, that includes things we can not touch like the electromagnetic spectrum, which is not the same as the subjective world. 

Science (the soft sciences at least) try to dab into the subjective world but don't go very far and their findings are shackled by the materialistic paradigm they stem from.

 

Again, science is a tool to make sense of the material world, including non-material forces like electricity, gravity, magnetism etc. It's a very useful tool when applied in that context. 

However, when applied to the inner subjective reality, its usefulness leaves much to be desired. The analogy of the katana sword I mentioned in my previous post is very fitting here as well. 

[Mike Teavee]

Nietzsche said it best... "God is Dead"... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

 

Now can we close this thread :) 

 

 

P.S. I'm just joking, I find some of the posts (in particular @Sunmaster) very thought provoking & cause me to take a good look at my inner self... 

 

But I do think Nietzsche was right about the Christian/Muslim/Judaist etc... view of "God". 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Mike Teavee

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

When we talk about the material world, that includes things we can not touch like the electromagnetic spectrum, which is not the same as the subjective world. 

Science (the soft sciences at least) try to dab into the subjective world but don't go very far and their findings are shackled by the materialistic paradigm they stem from.

 

Again, science is a tool to make sense of the material world, including non-material forces like electricity, gravity, magnetism etc. It's a very useful tool when applied in that context. 

However, when applied to the inner subjective reality, its usefulness leaves much to be desired. The analogy of the katana sword I mentioned in my previous post is very fitting here as well. 

As I've mentioned before, science can only investigate what can be detected. If a berieved woman claims she is seeing her deceased husband at the dining table, then other people at the dining table can determine whether or not the deceased husband exists in reality, by applying the most basic methods of sight and waving their hand through the claimed location of the deceased person.

 

It is reasonable to speculate that the woman is hallucinating, but suppose she is lying. Science doesn't have sufficiently sophisticated technology to detect a picture of the deceased husband in the woman's mind, but the technology is sufficiently developed to detect her degree of berievement.

 

This is not a shackling of science by a materialistic paradigm. Science recognises the enormous complexities of the variations within each individual. We are all different, to some degree. Even identical twins are not really identical. A very carefully researched drug used to treat a particular ailment, can be very effective on some people, and perhaps most people, but not all people. Some people, because of their genetic conditions, life-style, and diet, might respond negatively to the same drug.

 

Likewise, the individual experience of a particular Guru, resulting from certain practices, might be similar to the experiences of other people employing the same practices, but not similar to everyone's experience employing those practices, because of the differences in each person's background, genetic condition, past experiences, previous lifestyle, previous medical conditions, and so on.

[Sunmaster]

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

As I've mentioned before, science can only investigate what can be detected

Yes, that's fine. The problem is that a lot of people equate the non-detectability with non-existence, which I'm sure you'll agree, is a giant logical faux pas.

 

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

is reasonable to speculate that the woman is hallucinating, but suppose she is lying. Science doesn't have sufficiently sophisticated technology to detect a picture of the deceased husband in the woman's mind, but the technology is sufficiently developed to detect her degree of berievement

Assuming she's not lying, the fact that what she sees is not detectable with scientific tools, just means that either you don't use the right tools or there are no tools. I can have the most vivid and amazing dream, but how can I prove to you that i indeed had that dream? Is the lack of hard evidence proof that I'm lying or that the dream didn't exist? 

 

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Likewise, the individual experience of a particular Guru, resulting from certain practices, might be similar to the experiences of other people employing the same practices, but not similar to everyone's experience employing those practices, because of the differences in each person's background, genetic condition, past experiences, previous lifestyle, previous medical conditions, and so on.

Right. So you agree that there is a way to determine the validity of the subjective experience of a person. When enough others, employing the same practice arrive to the same or very similar conclusions (peer review), this should at the very least give us enough material to take that practice seriously.

Sounds like the scientific method applied to the subjective inner world is indeed a thing.

Hmm, some people might call this spiritual science.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

Happy New Year guys. 

 

Whatever I happen to post in the next 24hrs will be under the influence of various substances. To have some plausible deniability just in case...

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Happy New Year guys. 

 

Whatever I happen to post in the next 24hrs will be under the influence of various substances. To have some plausible deniability just in case...

 

Just make sure you find a comfortable place to pass out, Sunmaster.    Happy New Year, mate.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, that's fine. The problem is that a lot of people equate the non-detectability with non-existence, which I'm sure you'll agree, is a giant logical faux pas.

 

Not quite. We have to make a distinction between a logical and rational inference that something, which cannot yet be detected, might exist, because it's the best explanation for certain observed phenomena; and an illogical claim of certainty that something which cannot be detected, does in fact exist.

 

An example of the former, is the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It's existence is inferred from observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies. However, it's existence cannot yet be confirmed because Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot yet be detected. There are other explanations for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, but they are more problematic and flawed than the hypothesis of Dark Matter and Energy.

 

An example of the latter is the certainty (or belief) that God exists, despite no confirmed and proven detection. This is an example of the 'giant logical faux pas' you refer to.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Not quite. We have to make a distinction between a logical and rational inference that something, which cannot yet be detected, might exist, because it's the best explanation for certain observed phenomena; and an illogical claim of certainty that something which cannot be detected, does in fact exist.

 

An example of the former, is the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It's existence is inferred from observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies. However, it's existence cannot yet be confirmed because Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot yet be detected. There are other explanations for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, but they are more problematic and flawed than the hypothesis of Dark Matter and Energy.

 

An example of the latter is the certainty (or belief) that God exists, despite no confirmed and proven detection. This is an example of the 'giant logical faux pas' you refer to.

 

I gave you a thumbs up for the clarity with which you express your reasoning.  And given your beliefs your reasoning seems quite solid.  Seems.    Seems because you're missing much data in the mix of your current data set upon which your reasoning is based.  Also, you presume that your assumptions are correct.  And in the context of this discussion your prime assumption is the idea that our dear old mother earth, the entirety of our precious physical universe, and the 'you' that you see in the mirror is all there is.  All of the data that you pull from the massive data set which exists and is currently available to you you then attempt to fit to make your assumptions true.  Data which does not fit is discarded.  Other assumptions which would show your assumptions to be false you reject as well.

 

Reasoning can always, always be made very sound and the logic seemingly water tight given a) a certain, finite data set and b) the assumptions made upon which the entirety of reasoning is based.  Every theory is based upon at least a single assumption, and usually many more assumptions.  Here's an excerpt from NASA:

 

Assumptions, or working hypotheses, are a major part of science. In fact, it is difficult to talk for long with a scientist about science without hearing the words, “If we assume.” In order to make sense of things, we usually have to make assumptions, which help structure our thinking.

 

Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method

 

Now here's where all reasoning, yours and everyone else's about anything, has the potential to fail.  a) The data set is incomplete and b) the assumptions are incorrect.

 

So what might prevent someone from recognising that their data set is incomplete or that their assumption may be false?  Let's explore . . .

 

Now tell me if this is sound reasoning by your rational and logical standards.  A person's beliefs act like blinders.  I think we can agree on that, right?  Isn't that the very definition of bias - to wear blinders?  You see only what you want to see?  And aren't beliefs the very source of bias?  The fountainhead of bias?  I know you understand well the concept of bias since you've acknowledged it earlier.  Though I'm not so sure you understand bias' source.  Perhaps you do and maybe you don't.  You'd have to tell me.

 

Now take the example of someone who believes that the only reality which exists is the one they're in.  For them there's no ambiguity on this point and their conviction is rock solid.  So for the fun of it let's run an experiment where we assume that our working hypothesis - that other realities exist - is true.  Let's assume that our example friend is wrong in his belief that there exists only a singular reality - which is believed to be purely objective.  Your task is to convince this hypothetical friend otherwise. 

 

What you will quickly learn is this:  your friend's belief that there exists only a single reality will be the very thing which will blind him to the existence of other realities.  Neither reasoning nor logic nor any other data to the contrary will dissuade him.  Though the persuasive logic of your reasoning is sound he will refuse to accept it.  And even see it as illogical.  By one method or another he will reject all data which does not fit his model.  You may even be able to show him how he can enter other realities himself and thereby prove to himself conclusively that other realities do indeed exist.  (Again, for the sake of this experiment we'll make another assumption - that no reality is a closed system and therefore any reality is accessible - and consider it to be true.)  Since this friend is firm in his belief, comfortable with it, satisfied with it, and even threatened by the prospect that his assumptions may be in error and thus invalidate his reasoning and logic - which will automatically place him in a position where he's then not sure what to think about what's true and what's not, he will refuse to investigate himself.

 

BTW, I have a real world story, from this very site in fact, which perfectly illustrates the outright refusal of people to investigate for themselves the truth of a thing despite bringing them to the very portal of where that truth lies.  All they would have to do is enter yet they steadfastly and even vehemently refuse.  This example was even more interesting because it involved not just a single individual but quite a number of people.    I'll relate it if you're interested as it is solid proof that people will go to great, and frankly unbelievable lengths to reject anything and everything that they believe not to be true - sight unseen in fact.  Ah, behold the mighty power of belief!!  And that is not hyperbole in the slightest. 

 

Moral of the story?  Or the conclusions, results of the experiment?  Your beliefs are the very thing which will blind you to anything else which exists outside of the framework of your beliefs.  And it works the same regardless of the subject matter.  Be it issues of great weight, such as science and politics, or even the most mundane of issues, such as which option in a given situation of import would work given multiple options.  It's been said that all issues are the same issue.  Whether it's relationships, money, health, wealth or poverty . . . you name the issue.  Why?  Because the process by which all natively subjective issues are manifested, or translated into personal human experience of a physical nature, is the same.  Your beliefs create your experience, or your personal reality.  Kudos to anyone who can understand that truth with utter clarity.

 

Now this will be the most important part of my post.  You can forget everything else I've written and focus only on this:  Every belief forces one into accepting the presumptions upon which a particular belief is rooted.  When exploring the great unknown (of which the known is but a teensy tiny sliver) you had better be prepared to leave all of your current presumptions at home.  If you don't then you will take your presumptions with you and they will act as the figurative blinders which prevent you from seeing anything else which exists.  You can take that to the bank. 

[Tippaporn]

Geezus!!   9:06 in the morning and I've the first post of 2024?  Well, I'll take that as solid evidence that everyone had a great New Year's experience.

 

Sunmaster, any rocks under the spot you passed out on?      Hope you had a comfortable sleep. 

[Chris Daley]

The philosophy behind the bible is just so flawed and there are some seriously dubious sections in it.  Stoning homosexuals, mass murder, murdering innocent people, incest, eating children and their symbol is a man nailed to a cross.

 

There are far better works of fiction on the bookshelf that aim to help people live a peaceful life.

[save the frogs]

30 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

There are far better works of fiction on the bookshelf that aim to help people live a peaceful life.

 

Maybe that book is doing (mostly) the exact opposite - destroying people's peace of mind and it is the anti-thesis of promoting a peaceful life, on purpose by not so well-intentioned folks. 

After all, it all culminates in Armageddon. How less peaceful can you get? 

 

Edited January 1 by save the frogs

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/30/2023 at 10:55 PM, Tippaporn said:

Some of the biblical stories are, to put it mildly, far out when taken literally.

Starting with Adam and Eve as their children must have committed incest to propogate the species and the reason for the ban on incest is that it makes defective babies. However that might explain why humans are such a defective species.

 

Noah saved the animals 2 by 2- same thing, and when they landed didn't his sons marry the locals that apparently survived without an ark?

 

Bible is chocka with such tales , which is why to me it's just another history book at best and fables at worst

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Maybe that book is doing (mostly) the exact opposite - destroying people's peace of mind and it is the anti-thesis of promoting a peaceful life, on purpose by not so well-intentioned folks. 

After all, it all culminates in Armageddon. How less peaceful can you get? 

 

It's just a book. Was WW2 started by Hitler's book, or by bad people?

The men in funny hats that run religion are just using it to control people.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Nietzsche said it best... "God is Dead"... 

I've always been intrigued at why people have such reverence for people that wrote a book, as though the book was important, when surely it is the ideas that the book contain that are of importance? Isn't that why people think the Bible is important because they think it was written by God itself, and not by mere men.

 

Personally I have no respect for any of the great authors, not because they were wrong, but because I never read them, and their ideas have no part of my life. IMO if what they wrote was actually important to me I'd know about what they wrote.

 

When I was at school my reading was Lord of the Rings and Rider Haggard, not some esoteric tome by some scholar. Later I graduated to The Executioner ( excellent thriller series ), and Dune etc.

 

I'm not putting anyone down for reading that sort of book, but I just never had any incentive to do so. I guess I was always a doer and not a reader.

Now of course, the curse of the screen leaves little time for reading and if I do, it's going to be a Reacher thriller, not Nietzsche.

[Tippaporn]

22 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Because such a belief system can also have harmful effects, known as the Nocebo effect, which is the opposite of Placebo.

 

You're 100% accurate with that statement, Vincent.  Beliefs certainly can, and do, produce harmful effects.

 

22 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

When two different religious groups engage in war, it's at least partly because each group has a Nocebo effect on the other group.

 

Very true.  One side has more confidence in manifesting their desired outcome than the other side.  Sports is a great example of that dynamic in play (pun intended ).  And what is confidence?  The belief that one's desire will be manifested, e.g. made r-e-a-l.  From my point of view the nocebo effect isn't a partial reason but the whole reason.  And I would expound on your example of two different religious groups and say that it applies to any conflict.

 

22 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Why?  Tough nut to crack in a singular objective world.  Might it have anything to do with that other world?  You know, that subjective one?  The one that you ignore?  Question:  What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? 

 

I don't know why you think that scientific enquiry ignores the subjective world. The subjective world and the objective world are inseperable.

 

Because a vast swath of the scientific world believes that the explanation for any and everything that exists in this world can be distilled to an objective explanation.  Or said differently, every phenomenon in this world, including every subjective phenomenon, can be traced to objective source.  Psychologically speaking, and subjectivity is considered purely psychological, that would be the physical brain.  Not the mind, as the mind is nonphysical and the brain is it's physical counterpart.

 

No, science doesn't ignore subjective reality but they certainly refuse to accept it for what it truly is.  A totally different world.  And science would be shocked and very unaccepting of the idea that the very source of the objective world is the subjective one.  In other words, it would be impossible for the physical, objective world to exist if the subjective world did not exist.  It would be the epitome of scientific heresy to suggest their precious one-reality objective-reality is dependent upon subjective reality.  Say it's true, Vincent.  I know it is. 

 

What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? 

 

Give answering that question a shot, Vincent.  It's a vital question as it leads to some very critical understanding of the nature of our world.  Presently you have no idea where the question will take you.  You might be surprised.  I ask that you don't ignore answering it. 

 

On 12/31/2023 at 10:58 AM, VincentRJ said:

The subjective world and the objective world are inseperable.

 

By the way, what is your definition of subjectivity?  That would be interesting. 

 

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This is why it is impossible to be 100% objective and unbiased, because everything we experience or think about is fundamentally related to, and influenced by, our basic characteristics as a Homo Sapien species.

 

And that basic characteristic would be?  Hint:  beliefs. 

 

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Every experience, smell, taste, feeling, sight, hearing and thought process, is an interpretation in the human mind.

 

We certainly have a set of senses for which to interpret this reality.  They are in fact specifically tailored for that task.  Now I could add that there are many more senses available to us but I would then be going off on a tangent.  To be clear, our thoughts, though, are not one of our senses.

 

Our senses work just as any scientific device which can detect and interpret phenomenon which our five senses are unable to detect.  A sonar device, for instance.  Sonar is a technique that uses sound propagation to navigate, measure distances, communicate with or detect objects on or under the surface of the water, such as other vessels.  It is specifically tailored, or rather designed, to detect and interpret physical phenomenon.

 

Hey!!  I just had an idea.  Boy, I hate to toss this at you, Vincent, but what if our five senses were specifically . . . designed?  Now that's a comical notion if ever there was one. 

 

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Some interpretaions are considered to be correct, when they work consistently, and many are considered incorrect because they don't work consistently.

 

I'll let that one slide for now.  Too much to delve into and it would lead to a tangential discussion.

 

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The so-called spiritualists, often claim that science in general focuses on the material world, and ignores the non-material world. This is obviously not correct, because the Electromagnetic Spectrum, is non-material, that is, it has no mass. The Photon has no mass, yet everyone with eyesight experiences the effects of this non-material, massless energy, which science has been investigating for centuries.

 

Your examples are still confined strictly to the examination of the material world.  There are physical aspects to this reality which are not apparent to our usual five senses.  It is fallacious logic to assume that because there are physical aspects not apparent to our five senses that these aspects are therefore non-material.

 

By the way, I actually have a distaste for the term 'spiritual'.  Too much baggage that is attached to the word.  Too many interpretations.  Though I do use the term myself at times.

 

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course, science cannot investigate things which it cannot detect, but it can examine the processes that take place in the mind using techniques such as 'Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)', and Electroencephalography, or EEG. Such proceses are limited, but will presumably improve in the future.

 

For the sake of maintaining accuracy I'd swap out 'mind' with 'brain'.

 

Radiology Info - Functional MRI (fMRI)

 

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures the small changes in blood flow that occur with brain activity.

 

Mayo Clinic - EEG (electroencephalogram)

 

An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a test that measures electrical activity in the brain using small, metal discs (electrodes) attached to the scalp. Brain cells communicate via electrical impulses and are active all the time, even during asleep. This activity shows up as wavy lines on an EEG recording.

 

Still strictly dealing only with the objective world.  The effects of the brain on the body and it's effects on human psychology.  Not investigating the mind itself.  Or the subjective reality which produces the mind itself.  You guys are still ignoring the beating heart. 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Not quite. We have to make a distinction between a logical and rational inference that something, which cannot yet be detected, might exist, because it's the best explanation for certain observed phenomena; and an illogical claim of certainty that something which cannot be detected, does in fact exist.

 

An example of the former, is the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It's existence is inferred from observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies. However, it's existence cannot yet be confirmed because Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot yet be detected. There are other explanations for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, but they are more problematic and flawed than the hypothesis of Dark Matter and Energy.

 

An example of the latter is the certainty (or belief) that God exists, despite no confirmed and proven detection. This is an example of the 'giant logical faux pas' you refer to.

Some of us KNOW that God exists. The problem for those that don't is that there is no way to disprove God. God being subjective means that no scientific evidence exists, at least for the crude and primitive science that currently exists, which might prove or disprove God's existence.

 

It's perhaps easier to prove that the devil exists- one only has to look into the blackness of some people's souls to know that evil is real, ergo the devil is real, at least in my opinion, and if the devil exists, ergo God exists.

 

It's puzzling to me that so many are adamant that God does not exist. What is it, that makes them so anti? Did they dislike Sunday School, did they have nuns or monks for teachers?

Believing in a creator doesn't harm anyone unless they want to be bad, and fear hell.

While religion has indeed been and is used for evil purposes, that's on people, not God.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Because a vast swath of the scientific world believes that the explanation for any and everything that exists in this world can be distilled to an objective explanation.  Or said differently, every phenomenon in this world, including every subjective phenomenon, can be traced to objective source.  Psychologically speaking, and subjectivity is considered purely psychological, that would be the physical brain.  Not the mind, as the mind is nonphysical and the brain is it's physical counterpart.

I actually believe that everything can be explained objectively. Science can't prove anything subjective today eg the existence of God, not because God doesn't exist but because science is currently too primitive to be able to do so. In other words, our science is pants and expecting it to prove or disprove God is a nonsense- it's just not capable of doing so. In about a million years it might be able to, but it's unlikely to be by human scientists- we are well on the path to extinction already, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

An example of the latter is the certainty (or belief) that God exists, despite no confirmed and proven detection.

 

no confirmed and proven detection.

 

That's just not true. I've dozens if not hundreds of examples that God exists, but one has to be open to the evidence. If one starts from a conviction that God doesn't exist, one isn't going to see the evidence as such.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

@VincentRJ

 

Just an afterthought, Vince.  I admittedly suffer tremendously from them. 

 

Only in the belief that physical objective reality is all that exists can the subordinate belief then follow that everything in that world can therefore be proved or disproved using the scientific method.  In other words, the latter belief is wholly dependent upon the former.  The latter belief vanishes into thin air as soon as the former is found to be false.

 

Only in the belief that other realities exist can the belief in a God, or god, or Gods, or gods, or higher entities, or advanced beings exist.

 

If other realities do indeed exist, and furthermore that these other realities have effects upon or interactions with physical objective reality, then the obvious conclusion would be what?

 

That everything cannot be proven using the scientific method since the scientific method is strictly and inexorably confined to proving only that which exists in an objective reality.  A singular reality.

 

The truth is, Vincent, that not all things can be proven as you would like or demand.  You will, therefore, never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god or what represents a god.  You can, however, feel it's effects.  And plenty of people do. 

 

Illogical??? 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Starting with Adam and Eve as their children must have committed incest to propogate the species and the reason for the ban on incest is that it makes defective babies. However that might explain why humans are such a defective species.

 

Noah saved the animals 2 by 2- same thing, and when they landed didn't his sons marry the locals that apparently survived without an ark?

 

Bible is chocka with such tales , which is why to me it's just another history book at best and fables at worst

 

Man, I would have given you a <red heart> reaction, TBL, rather than a thumbs up if it weren't for your defective (purposeful use of your own adjective ) sentiment regarding the humans species. 

[Mike Teavee]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've always been intrigued at why people have such reverence for people that wrote a book, as though the book was important, when surely it is the ideas that the book contain that are of importance? Isn't that why people think the Bible is important because they think it was written by God itself, and not by mere men.

 

Personally I have no respect for any of the great authors, not because they were wrong, but because I never read them, and their ideas have no part of my life. IMO if what they wrote was actually important to me I'd know about what they wrote.

 

When I was at school my reading was Lord of the Rings and Rider Haggard, not some esoteric tome by some scholar. Later I graduated to The Executioner ( excellent thriller series ), and Dune etc.

 

I'm not putting anyone down for reading that sort of book, but I just never had any incentive to do so. I guess I was always a doer and not a reader.

Now of course, the curse of the screen leaves little time for reading and if I do, it's going to be a Reacher thriller, not Nietzsche.

 

You seem to view Nietzsche as an Author & I'd never put that label on him even though he's written books. 

 

My favourite author has to be Conan Doyle, I grew up on Sherlock Holmes stories & love them to this day :) 

 

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

- we are well on the path to extinction already, IMO.

 

Depends on which version of Earth you're talking about.

 

 

Edited January 1 by Tippaporn

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Man, I would have given you a <red heart> reaction, TBL, rather than a thumbs up if it weren't for your defective (purposeful use of your own adjective ) sentiment regarding the humans species. 

That's not going to change. We are an awful species IMO. The things we are capable of are just evil. Even I was capable of going to Vietnam and killing boys that just wanted to drive out an invader, and I was on my way when our part in it ended. It wasn't till much later I realised just how evil war is.

Thanks anyway, but I'll have to struggle on without any hearts.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

My favourite author has to be Conan Doyle, I grew up on Sherlock Holmes stories & love them to this day :) 

 

Sir Conan Doyle.

 

A remarkably perceptive individual as expressed through his character Sherlock.  He had a knack for eliminating the possibilities that couldn't fit and come up with the only one that could.

 

I, too, have read them all and love them dearly. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Depends on which version of Earth you're talking about.

 

 

The one I live in.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's not going to change. We are an awful species IMO. The things we are capable of are just evil. Even I was capable of going to Vietnam and killing boys that just wanted to drive out an invader, and I was on my way when our part in it ended. It wasn't till much later I realised just how evil war is.

Thanks anyway, but I'll have to struggle on without any hearts.

 

Ah, you're deserving of a big, ol' red heart, TBL. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

 

Sir Conan Doyle.

 

A remarkably perceptive individual as expressed through his character Sherlock.  He had a knack for eliminating the possibilities that couldn't fit and come up with the only one that could.

 

I, too, have read them all and love them dearly. 

Likewise, though Sanders of the River was my real hero, not forgetting Alan Quartermain of course.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The one I live in.

 

Which "I"?