MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Only a fool would say definitely "there ...

Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god"

posted 7 years ago by mxpowers43 (367)
334 replies | jump to latest

A intellectually honest person would say "i definitely have no idea if there is a god". So I am reading this book and not sure where to go to discuss it. It is a book by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. called 'Genesis and the Big Bang'. Schroeder got his PhD in Nuclear Physics from MIT, for those that would question his credentials without looking him up.

I always did well in physics classes in high school and college but by no means is it my professional expertise but in doing prior reading from Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Kraus and others I feel I have a pretty good grasp of secular cosmology as well as Einstein's laws of general and special relativity. So this read for me is just a interesting take on what the time dilation of the biblical pre-Adam 6 days could mean. But it is also a reminder of how nothing about cosmology or big bang creation is conclusive and to treat it in any other manner than inconclusive is contrary to science.

It still surprises me that there are some atheist (or rather anti-theists) out there that not only think the verdict is out on this topic of creation and big bang but think so sufficiently enough that people that believe in "gawd" can be mocked and that all religious thought should be mitigated into obscurity. I am not so naive in this. Which is why I read the things I do. It is hard to get a fix on what I believe in this regard because as special relativity demonstrates we cannot even properly qualify time except from the position of the observer. I mean unless someone can definitely give an answer to how the mu-meson can travel 200 microseconds in 4.5 microseconds. I mean some people discount the idea of a creator and do not even understand relativity and probably don't even know what a mus-meson (which are produced when the cosmic rays slam into the nuclei of the gases in the atmosphere).

Now this is not true of all atheist and I am not saying religious people have it right either because both seem for the most part demonstrate often a lack of full study and consideration. It just seems so intellectually lazy to throw out either perspective without careful consideration and respect for the other. Then again it is hard to do that when both seem dead set on destroying the other. As I see it Hawking and Kraus are both too political in a agenda and too emotionally invested in their anti-god crusade to be truly objective in there observation. Schroeder IMO does a better job of removing emotional involvement in the same manner Einstein did. Whether or not they personally believe in a creator is obviously going to have some impact on their observation but at least they are intellectually honest with themselves about it. Hawking and Kraus seem pompous and arrogant.

Sorry for the long rant but I find it frustrating that not only do some of these professional physicists commit serious logical fallacies but that pseudo-intellectuals often worship their words and theories as absolutes. Keep in mind that even if every thought about God, Gobs, the bible, the Quran, Confucianism, mythology and any other thought or theory on the nature of creation was proved wrong does not by default prove there is not or was not a creator that guided the first elements into being. By the laws of nature Hawking and Kraus (and many other anti-theist scientist) believe in something that is impossible, it is a paradox referred to as the infinite regression.

Alright let's see if I get crucified by the secular philistines. lol

[–] nightgoat85 (5) 7 years ago

It's a complicated topic, and I think Atheists can be just as ignorant and irritating as theists. My stance is that all dogmatic mythology is flawed and dated. If you're a fundamentalist and have a literal belief in mythology, you are out of step with the 21st century and are pushing an authoritarian culture on the rest of us. As for what I call myself? It's difficult to say. I'm an agnostic in the sense that I strive to keep my mind open looking for spirituality in all this cruelty, and I acknowledge that I don't know what's out there or how everything works, but I'm an atheist in the sense that I have no personal God, and could never accept a personal God that is attached to a set of values that are out of step with the time I'm alive to experience.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I think this is a fair approach to such an unknowable concept and is in line with the idea of reasonable discussion and disagreement I am pushing for. I know that I put more focus on one type of atheist (namely anti-theist) in my OP and that does not fairly represent that there are many religious people that are anti-atheist or anti-science and I find that offensive too. But it seems that the main stream is propping up what I see as particularly hypocritical secularism and science. The religious people are ignorant to ignore the science but they are not hypocrites in that they do not deny their belief is based in faith not proof. Where as the anti-theist know that the scientific evidence is inconclusive but claim they maintain objectivity when pushing for an agenda to get rid of/destroy theism and theistic religions.

For example; I think people that believe in Ghosts or Aliens (especially ancient aliens) are silly to believe such considering there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. But I have no animosity toward the people that do nor do I have animosity towards the concept of Ghosts or Aliens. I just find it silly and sometimes annoying. I would never in my life demand "prove to me Ghosts are real." That is a ridiculous demand, instead I would try to give the facts and arguments that they likely do not exist. I would not try to shift all the burden of proof on to them even with as silly as I consider the belief to be. The concept of God is far more complex than believing in ghost and has significant meaning to our (western) laws, culture, society, psychology and history. I think Dr. Jordan B. Peterson is absolutely right about this point and that those like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are wrong (though I respect them both).

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

"The concept of God is far more complex than believing in ghost and has significant meaning to our (western) laws, culture, society, psychology and history."

I don't understand. Isn't The Holy Ghost, as in the Holy Trinity a supernatural being?
If so, ghosts are supernatural beings. I discussed this with my priest many years ago when I was a practicing Catholic.
I just thought I'd toss that out there. I really don't care to get into this with you. You will only shoot down anything I have to say on this subject.
I have read much of this thread. Much of what you say is a bit confusing. Believe me! I have tried to follow your thinking. Just when I believe I understand what you are saying, you suddenly change your ideas. You don't seem to be open to anyone's ideas other than your own though.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

I agree. There's been a lot of convoluted doublespeak in this thread, which was predictable at the onset considering the subject matter.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

He/she has given me a massive headache!

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

It is not convoluted, the subject matter is complex and covers history, beliefs, psychology and behavior over the course of 10000 years of human society. The nature of such a discussion is bound to create some problems with clarity at one post or another. Only through further discussion and discourse can we arrive at full understanding. writing it off as "convoluted doublespeak" is condescending as hell.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

Denial, which is incongruous with someone who harps about " objectivity " as much as you have here. And if anything has been " condescending as hell, " it's much of the ego-driven, pseudo intellectual drivel in this thread.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

What denial are you talking about? You are not being clear and it is ridiculous to suggest a conversation about science, religion, harmony, history, behavior and social interaction is "convoluted". How could such a conversation be anything more than deep, philosophical and complex? If it was easy to talk about we would not be doing it right and would be lazy and ignorant for it.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

Now you're obfuscating again, which is exactly why the thread is convoluted.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Like I said, " predictable at the onset. "

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

No I am just giving the topic the full attention it deserves. You are being intellectual lazy and unnecessarily condescending; without providing any details to support anything you are saying. You are an example of a bad approach.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

And you're an example of the hypocrites you rail against.

I'm done with this charade of yours, got it ? In layman's terms, " at the end of the day, you've got a lot to learn, junior ! "

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

The hypocrites I was railing against are those that are being disrespectful AND lazy with their approach to this topic. As you are. I may be tense and unforgiving but I am not lazy and I provide as many details as I can to be as clear as I can. I am not just a condescending prick that has one sentence responses and walks away feeling better about myself. In layman's terms "fix your tone or shut up and let the adults have a conversation".

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

" Fix you tone or shut up ? " What does that even mean ? Just another stupid comment that validates my claim of pseudo intellectualism.

At least my sentences are grammatically correct. 🙄

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I caught that late. I just fixed it.

Nice to see you have no argument and are resorting to pathetic grammar errors. Sign you are the lazy person I was suggesting you are.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

db can't be that "lazy" if your grammar needs correcting.
Move on already. This "adult" conversation has become tiresome!

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

first all I corrected my grammar error before db responded. second of all I was responding to 4 different people at the same time. I am good but I am only so good. third of all, if it is so tiresome for you go somewhere else, why try to derail a conversation you are not interested in? Based on the fact this has been going for weeks and new people comment all the time suggest YOU and only YOU find it tiresome.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

I also find it tiresome. That's why I said I'm done with your charade, junior !

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

than stop replying. I mean this is borderline insanity. I am not forcing you to reply or read. Leave my time for those that want to participate. If no one replies the conversation dies and you would win. You are totally self defeating yourself. I am the one with an vested interest in the discussion I have reason to reply you do not. What is wrong with you?

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

Thank you, Miss Margo !

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Confirmation bias? self congratulation much? Why don't you two start your own discussion where you can just go back and forth patting each other on the back. Seems to be the only type of conversation that doesn't "hurt your head" or make you 'tired'.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

First you say, stop replying;now you're baiting for a further argument.

Stop replying ! Move on, junior !

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

and you are still going. It is my conversation, "junior" I have a reason to reply and keep it going.

"move on"

I will move on from MY discussion when I damn well please to.

YOu don't like it than YOU stop replying, "junior".

Obvious troll is obvious.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

😆 I think this might be the first time I've seen frustrated sputtering adequately expressed in a forum ! 😆

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

having fun trolling? if so you are a liar because you are obviously not tired of this.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I do not "shoot down" what you say because I am not open to ideas of others. You do not provide very many details context or specifics and I try to get some out of you and you become defensive.

For example I states that the concept of divine eternal ideal is much more complex than spirits/ghosts. But than you would have to specify what you mean by ghosts. The type of Ghosts I am referring to in my skepticism are the "haunted house" type ghosts that I find a bit silly. pleas provide some specification and context on what you see as ghosts and what you discussed with your priest about them otherwise I have no point of reference for where you stand on that particular subject. I do think it is worth noting I would think it is a safe assumption to not look at the idea of god as being equal with the idea of ghosts because even though ghosts are a supernatural being there are suggestions they interact with the physical world. The idea of God does not always (and in my understanding never) interacts directly with the physical world and exists only in our consciousness (or what some might call our spirit/soul).

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

mxpowers, you provide far too many details.
I'm not defensive. If anything, you seem to be.
I'm not exactly certain of what you are searching for. Science? Religion? Supernatural?

This whole subject should and could have been wrapped up if you were only clear and if you could only keep your ideas short and simple.
You seem to want an argument. I'm not interested in arguing with you because I am confused by what you want out of this whole discussion.
I am amazed at just how far this whole thing has gone on!
I'm also ashamed that I have contributed to it's length.
Believe me when I say that I'm not being defensive. I am simply confused by you. What do you want here? What do you want people to tell you?
Say it in one sentence. After that, this can be over and done.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"you provide far too many details."

details are a good thing. as for my objective, I do not think I could be more clear than I was. I was discussing what I see as a hypocritical approach toward people and their beliefs in an anti-'anything' approach (specifically pointing out anti-theism as my example because I see them as the most hypocritical) and trying to suggest we be less conclusive about the inconclusive and more open to respectful discussion or disagreement. I honestly thought you and I were having reasonably respectful discussion but you seem to think I am being argumentative just because I provide a significant amount of specification and detail. Maybe I am just intense with my words, that does not mean I am trying to be mean or argumentative with you.

"Say it in one sentence. After that, this can be over and done."

If you think this subject matter could ever be summed up in one sentence then you do not understand the subject matter.

"I am amazed at just how far this whole thing has gone on!"

Me too, it has been rather surprising successful. I have both gotten great example of what I think is bad and good approaches. Though some of the times it has been annoying and frustrating I am relatively satisfied with it. Almost to the point I might, close out and stop replying soon.

"I'm also ashamed that I have contributed to it's length."

Well, then why are you still responding? Why would you be ashamed or adding something to a conversation? why would the length of a conversation bother You? very strange statement.

[–] nightgoat85 (5) 7 years ago

One of my best friends is one of those Anti-theists types, he refers to believers as Bible addicts, Koran addicts, he oddly leaves the Jewish faith alone and is a staunch supporter of the Netanyahu regime in Israel, which I feel is odd considering they've got the most violent text and Netanyahu is such a warmonger. Every time I challenge him he just bottles up and runs away, very similar to most fundamentalists I've debated. He will not acknowledge that his level of anti-theism is just as much an ideology as anything, so I totally get where you're coming from. I certainly believe in institutions, whereas a Catholics institution would be the doctrine set forth by the Vatican, mine is the US Constitution. It's fairly new and we get to amend it from time to time, and it allows us to debate these things but forbids us from trampling on each other. win/win

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

what do you mean by Jewish faith having the "Most violent text"?

Yes I agree that anti-theism is as much an ideology as anything else and I am somewhat frustrated with the hypocrisy of those that deny this. But when talking with them they do typically reveal just how pathological their ideology has become; hopefully that serves as a warning to others.

Yes I agree the US constitution is one of the best doctrines in human history; but I believe it was heavily inspired by Judaeo-christian values and doctrines thus it is the ultimate expression of 6000 years of human to biblical reasoning. I do fear, as Dr. Peterson does, that you can't just get rid of the that foundation and hope that the current structure will stand on its own.

[–] nightgoat85 (5) 7 years ago

The Tora is an extremely troubling book to a non-believer. It promotes war, murder, genocide, rape, incest, slavery, male genital mutilation, forced conversion. I'll say I have never met a Jewish person I haven't liked though. As for the constitution, it absolutely is based on Judeo Christian values to certain extents, but most of our research has concluded many of our founders were deists and and not ideologues. I do believe we can move past all of that though, and we are. Latest polls have shown that religiosity is going down and I'm ecstatic about that. I'm certainly not one of those naive utopian secularists that thinks all the worlds problems will be solved if we just stop believing in myths. I'm only speaking for the United States of America here, because it's the only place I call home. I believe that in this country, we can continue to move past religion and re-organize our priorities to the now and the future.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"It promotes war, murder, genocide, rape, incest, slavery, male genital mutilation, forced conversion."

Hmm from what I have read, and i have read it 3 times. It seems most of these examples you gave are not standing orders but were commanded in a past tense. Meaning God at that time gave the orders but was not to be continuously carried out. At least that is how I read it. This is different from the Quran which does give standing commands on what is appropriate to do to both infidels and other Muslims.

The only 2 you brought up that were not in past tense where slavery and circumcision. to which I say you should not read those with 21st century eyes and consider why they were like that 6000 years ago. Keep in mind 'Freedom' as a concept is a relatively new idea.

"most of our research has concluded many of our founders were deists and and not ideologues"

From my research it seemed only Jefferson and Franklin were the founders that were deists. If you have information to the contrary of that could you point me to it; I would like to read more on it.

I understand you position but I think I have less confidence in our values being stable without the original foundation. I think if the foundation for the constitution are pushed into obscurity the values will be in free fall.

[–] nightgoat85 (5) 7 years ago

There's simply no point in getting into a philosophical debate on biblical intention, you've read it three times, I've read it once. I've just been told God is infallible, but if God changes his mind, perhaps he changed his mind on many things over the past few centuries and followers just didn't listen to the correct messengers. Which is the important lesson here. I cannot see religion from your perspective because the religion I was raised in was a fringe non-denominational group who do not believe in the trinity, but believe in the God family, who at this time is only God, with the Word taking human form as Jesus to send a message to the chosen flock to prepare to become join the God family, hence becoming Gods themselves, where they'll control Earth and eventually become God's teachers. Weird, right? That's how I ended up in my point of view.

I don't have much faith in humanity as a whole, but I have faith in individuals. I see people do amazing things almost every day. I do my part, you probably do your part and people see us, and they do theirs, and hopefully with every piece of progress made society will get better. I'll veer away from religion and slightly into politics here, I didn't vote for this President but I'm seeing things get better with him in office, and it's of no credit to him at all. Sunlight is the best sanitation. We're seeing evils face in the open, and as a result people are coming forward to do the right thing. We're seeing his culture crumble around him as all these sexual predators are exposed, Bill Cosby went down, Roger Ailles went down, Bill O'Reilly went down, Anthony Weiner went down, Harvey Weinstein went down, James Toback went down, there will be more, and it could potentially get really dark and shatter a lot of illusions we've held about this culture and its power structure. But out of that a better and safer culture will emerge, and it will be of no credit to religion.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"he changed his mind on many things over the past few centuries and followers just didn't listen to the correct messengers."

You are right of course to get into a philosophical debate on intentions meaning and interpretation on the bible is far too much to be contained with any single format. To focus on this one alone one could make the argument that God in the bible never changes his mind but the circumstances for us change and God's laws are designed to be open to interpretation for all times at least to a degree.

I understand how you came to your world view. I do not think it is wrong in any reasonable sense. But I wonder, do understand what I mean by the point that even if every concept we as humans have had of the nature of god is wrong that does not by default prove there is not a creator or a god? I see this as a logical fallacy used by those being intellectually lazy: "this thing someone told me about god is wrong, therefore there is no god" "I read this in the bible and it didn't make sense, therefore there is no god" "I was raised in X denomination and it was ridiculous, therefore there is no god". I do not think you are guilty of that but do you see how people slip into that fallacy?

Humanity is made up of individuals; so I do not have faith in individuals. In my view of individuals when left to their own devices they either become hyper-rational in the sense of taking what they can while they can at no concern to others or they become fully malicious and want to destroy others for the gain of their own power.

I am going to stop there because I do not wish to comment on politics at this time. But I do think you are being level headed in your approach to politics at least based on this short paragraph you gave.

[–] nightgoat85 (5) 7 years ago

Yes, I understand your point, which is why I always acknowledge I don't know what's out there or how everything works. I love the idea of deism, I just can't believe in the existence of a personal God, for reasons I've stated earlier. This has been a very good discussion. Cheers.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I also like the idea of deism quite a bit. For a while I would describe myself as a stoic. I am not sure if you know a stoic's concept of what 'god' would be, but in short it is a disembodied entity (or rather non-entity) of ultimate reason. Which makes it closer to a deist philosophy. but I ran into problems with deism when speculating on the cosmological theories and secular science. Part of the reason I never could follow the theories of secular science proposed by those like Hawking and Krauss was because the idea of a self creating universe having the 'need' to create itself suggest presence of reason before any elements were formed. At first this apparently does not have a problem staying in line with deistic thoughts but I find it logically incorrect to assume that reason can exist without some kind of conscious will.

basically the scientific explanation and deist approach both run into the idea of random occurrence and non-conscious forces working in line with reason for existence but without any will. How can something have reason without conscious will? I could not think up a good answer so I kept investigating.

To be honest right now I am leaning more towards the idea that there probably is or at least was some kind of theistic or polytheistic force that had some level of conscious will to at least begin the creation process.

Thank you for the word of encouragement and for the pleasant discussion, not all the conversation here have gone as pleasantly, but the posters that have been rather nasty are still a success in proving the point I was trying to make. cheers.

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 7 years ago

I agree that it is stupid to say there is no God, but it really depends on what one's conception of God is. If you look at God simply as a higher power which we do not fully understand, I would think that makes a lot of sense. However, the more specific you make it, and the more you make it adhere to a flawed mythology transmitted through many generations and iterations of oral tradition, the harder it might be for one to take it as "gospel". One could be cynical and use the approach of Pascal's wager, which is to believe because if certain religions are correct, you will be handsomely rewarded if they are correct and you will lose nothing, other than some pre-death ridicule and tithes if you are wrong.

I tend to leave people to think what they want, unless they are harming someone or trying to scam money from them. Sure one could say the religion is the root of many wars, but one could also argue it saved the world from even more anarchy and chaos. My philosophy is that if it makes people able to cope with the often overwhelming question of existence, then why not let them comfort themselves, even if it ends up only being an illusion.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

As usual, Sentient Meat, you're very sensible.

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 7 years ago

Thanks!

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

The Lakota ( Sioux ), named God as Wakan-Tanka , translations of which are The Great Spirit, The Great Unknown or The Power Behind the Sun. They did not fully understand yet were able to live more harmoniously with creation than Christian caucasians.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"They did not fully understand yet were able to live more harmoniously with creation than Christian caucasians"

You should expand on this statement. As it is it sounds racist and bigoted against both Christians and Caucasians. It sounds like you are saying it is 'easier to live harmoniously with the creation (nature) than with chrisian Caucasians'. If this is actually what you meant than you are racist and seemingly suggesting genocide against christian Caucasians since they cannot live in harmony with others.

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

You continue to be an obfuscating idiot !

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"obfuscating idiot !"

Are you incapable of actual conversation and resort right to name calling? I did not obfuscate anything the topic is necessarily complex. Simplifying it would be lazy and was one of the very things I was criticizing.

You are so careless with your word choice and lazy in your context you now sound like a genocidal maniac.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

What??

I know you and Db have drawn swords in this thread, and that's clouding your vision, but that's not anything close to what he said. I can't imagine anyone else would interpret it the way you have. What he said was clear as it stands.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

if you understood it can you explain it to me? Because it is possible I took it the wrong way but that statement I quoted was no question singling out "christian caucasians" and suggesting they cannot not in some way easily "live harmoniously" with others. I merely took that to a logical conclusion of, 'if you cannot live with them you have to get rid of them'.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

"The Lakota, ( Sioux ) named God as Wakan-Tanka , translations of which are The Great Spirit, The Great Unknown or The Power Behind the Sun. They did not fully understand yet were able to live more harmoniously with creation than Christian caucasians."

First he was talking about *one* Native American tribe, the Lakota/Sioux. Secondly, there's no question that Native Americans in general lived more harmoniously with nature/creation than Christians (regardless of race), or many of those of any number of religions, for that matter.

"I merely took that to a logical conclusion of, 'if you cannot live with them you have to get rid of them'."

That is one big, wild leap of logic.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

" there's no question that Native Americans in general lived more harmoniously with nature/creation than Christians (regardless of race), or many of those of any number of religions, for that matter."

Umm, yes there is a question of native americans in general living more harmoniously with nature/creation depending on what you view as nature and creation. For example there were some native american cultures that not only built empires similar to that of western counter parts but also performed all kinds of barbaric rituals and war practices toward other humans, which are part of nature. Native Americans in the pre-colonial Americas were by no means a bastion of harmony even among themselves. Just because they 'worshiped' nature and in many cases were less wasteful of resources does not mean they were harmonious civilized people. I mean christian caucasians were wasteful and polluted the environment quite a bit but they were not practicing human sacrifices and barbarically wiping out rival tribes in the most brutal fashions imaginable.

It seems to me that db specifically picked out christians caucasions because of a bias opinion. For example one could make the argument that Muslims during that same time frame of history did not live harmoniously with anyone or with nature. It was a questionable choice to cherry pick the christians as the example of 'bad actors' when everyone was bad by our standards today.

I really do not understand how this anti-christian narrative became so conclusive in everyone's minds. Like it seems everyone is in common agreement that christian were the bad guys of history when in reality they were no different than any other group at the time.

"That is one big, wild leap of logic."

why is it a leap of logic. To suggest you cannot live with a particular thing, the only logical move to make is to try to get rid of it in some fashion. I would think that is a logic leap

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

"Native Americans in the pre-colonial Americas were by no means a bastion of harmony even among themselves."

Some were, some weren't. As I said, Db very specifically was talking about the Lakota/Sioux.

"why is it a leap of logic. To suggest you cannot live with a particular thing, the only logical move to make is to try to get rid of it in some fashion. I would think that is a logic leap"

Db didn't suggest or even intimate he couldn't live with a particular thing, in this case harmony. He merely made a statement. It's you who first made that assumption, and then leapt to the conclusion that therefore destruction of that particularly thing was the only possible logical move. Think about it.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"Some were, some weren't. As I said, Db very specifically was talking about the Lakota/Sioux."

Yes do you not see the disingenuous nature of the commentt? Comparing the specific Lakota/sioux to all christian Caucasians is not a equal comparison. Because some christian caucasians were more harmonious than others in the same way some native groups were better than others. db took a big group and compared it to a small group. My question is why make this generality as such unless there was nefarious intent?

"Db didn't suggest or even intimate he couldn't live with a particular thing, in this case harmony. He merely made a statement"

It was a generalization of christina caucasians not being as harmonious as the specific Lakota/Sioux native Americans. What else can I assume from such a statement other than db views that one group is better than the other?

[–] db20db (16568) 7 years ago

Thank you for your clarity of perception, Cat !

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

You're welcome, Db.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I agree fully with all of this. classically speaking it was the religious; usually theist religious, that would harm others. Today I see it reversed and see the anti-theist as the ones doing or at least pushing for a climate that would harm theistic believes. I see the animosity they have towards the theistic beliefs and believe it to be a potentially dangerous ideology.

[–] slimone (7996) 7 years ago

There is no "god." Get over it.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

oh good. it is settled then. I don't know what I was so worked up about and why i dedicated so much time to investigating when all I need to do is ask online poster slimone. You had the answer all along. Thank you. I will now go on and conquer the world in thy name alone.

[–] slimone (7996) 7 years ago

Dear mx. . ..sorry if I offended you. It's just that I have spent a lot of time researching everything I could about the existence of a "god". I grew up as a Catholic but never really believed in the religion and left it when I was a teen. I spent years as a Buddhist where I felt the most comfortable. But then decided that I really am not religion inclined at all. I believe in evolution as the origin of the universe. I leave others to their beliefs. Again, sorry.

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I was not offended. I was responding sarcastically to your lazy comment; which if you had read my entire OP you would know was one of the primary things I was criticizing. I do not mind what you believe, because it is probably similar to what I believe, primarily secular scientific explanation. I just admit that every thought and belief has holes and is inconclusive so to state conclusively is not a objective approach and in my opinion lazy.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Yup, it is a pretty self contradictory "true agenda" I am trying to get people to be less lazy in their thinking but at the same time I am trying to conquer the world. Wouldn't it be easier for me if everyone was dumb, thoughtless and easily manipulated?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Yeah I bet people don't like being called lazy in their thinking. Conviction is a hell of a thing.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

The OP was not provocative, as far as I can see. The title was because I was trying to attract attention to open discussion. If one was careless and did not bother to read the OP then why would calling that lazy be such a problem. And again I was focused on criticizing those that are disrespectful AND lazy when looking at other people's beliefs. The word lazy keeps coming up because many of the posters are perfectly exemplifying the type of laziness I was critiquing in the first place.