I can run rings around 98% of the populace in a general scientific understanding and thought, and what gripped me one day, was a realization how tiny is the view, knowledge and understanding of the scientific community. SETI is only one illustration: in spite of many years of extensive scope searching, the skies remain depressingly unintelligent. I would doubt you ever spent much time to examine biblical evidence objectively. Because you fit the scriptural description of the unconvinced and mocking unbeliever quite well. Once you decided it was wrong and science was right, even though you likely had a layman's grasp at best of either, you comforted yourself with the wrong answer.
I'm not sure if anyone did treat me badly or not, but for all I know, I never asked for this life and am not in anyway thankful of it ... so fuck God, the universe and everything within ... wouldn't it be great to see hell rain upon mankind
I have found religion and philosophy profoundly useful in my life. The prime object of the ancient Greek philosophers was to answer the question "how should I lead my life?" I have found answers to this question not only amongst the "pagan" philosophers but also from my deep enjoyment of many comparative religions. I feel myself free to wonder deeply at the Christmas Story and to be moved by the Sermon on the Mount, without needing to believe that Christ was "the" son of God or indeed that an anthropomorphic god exists at all. Or that a god in the Judeo Christian sense created the universe. I find a deep meditative ease and wonderment in the sublime music of the Western Christian church and its superb art and architecture. Out of preference, I find that the Buddhist faith helps me the most in my daily life. I find the Zen approach to fully entering into this world and its wonders preferable to the quietist approach of some branches of Buddhist thought. Certainly I find it infinitely more suitable than the Christian approach typified by Thomas a Kempis - that we must almost despise this life and this world in order to better gain access to an elusive and distant "kingdom of heaven" beyond the grave. All religions teach (or rather their founders taught) the foolishness of seeking materialist gains and the peace which can arise from living a morally good and ungrasping life. I am deeply saddened by foolish religious divisions which are so very destructive and so opposed to the original foundersâ intentions. There is so much beauty and peace and goodness taught by Christ, the Buddha, Confucius which could heal the world of its strife and divisions if really taken to heart. If the fundamentalists understood that all roads lead to the same goal, if they emerged from their shells of prejudice and ignorance and used their faith to extend tolerance and compassion and patience to all, the kingdom of god, nirvana, the garden of Eden could be seen to be here and now.
Wow, sorry to hear that. You're not obliged to feel thankful for your life and I don't see it as a 'gift' either, but I think most people are still enjoying the freebie. Was it always this way? Maybe you should seek help. Maybe start by answering Hansel's question. Respectfully, Ursa..
(Han, as a side note, the way you are using the quote feature -- including your comments inside the quote margins, make it difficult to locate your comments, and also make it look like I am the author of your work.) Me >With your concession that the scientifically validated >law of gravity impinges not on free will, why believe >that any other scientifically validated law/entity would >be different? Hans: >All the laws of nature do of course qualify the exercise >of our free will; we have no option but to work with and >around these unchallengeably extant entities. And we would have no option but to "work with" an all powerful and "unchallengeable" god. You haven't presented any distinction as of yet. Hans: >Our free will is applied to whatever it is we're given >to work with/around - including a world of natural laws. Me: >... or a proven god. Hans: >Surely. But as I indicated before a proven god >might greatly reduce the meaning of free will. You keep saying that as if it's a different principle than with gravity, but still no presented reasoning behind it. >We would still have infinite behavioral options but >only those behaviors that would concur with the >will of that proven god could be rational (assuming >that one wants to avoid the wrath of this god ). Same as with gravity (assuming one wants to avoid the big fall). >In all likelihood life would be reduced to a limited >play-it-safe routine. I skydive, rock climb, hang glide, sailplane, etc. Some don't -- some play it safe. >We see this to some extent in religious fundamentalist >societies the members of which believe that their god is >vengeful and punitive and whose existence is proven. Yes, metaphorically speaking, those are the one's who *don't* hang glide, skydive, etc. Everyone responds differently to laws and threats (and isn't that what free will is all about). >On the other hand, to exercise that free will in defiance >of an all-powerful Ass who would burn you in hell forever >would be reckless would it not? Exercising discretion is a >kind of choosing - a kind of exercising free will. Ok, now I'm REALLY confused. First you say that the absolute, scientific knowledge of god would essentially do away with free will, and then above you state that "exercising discretion" (in choosing to follow or not) is actually an exercise in just that. I take your last paragraph as you arguing my point for me. As to my position on that last paragraph -- I've never bowed or knelt to an ASS in my life, and I'm not gonna start now. I'm wired like the fire ants here in the desert ... they see me, a half mile high monster (scaled) and they look at their buddies and say "c'mon, let's go get it", in the face of absolute death. JB
Ten thousand pardons for my (mis-)use of the quote feature. The truth is it's just a tactic - having you furiously debate yourself in public. Looking through your post I don't really see where we're much in disagreement except perhaps on this point: We work both with and around the laws of nature but only with the nasty vindictive all-knowing god; there would be no way to get around or to use this god as we do natural forces. We can successfully exploit gravity in countless ways but would exploit an all-knowing god (as TV evangelists exploit their god) to our detriment (the all-knowing, vindictive god knows we're just exploiting it). One other point if I may: The fire ants are fearless but stupid; Turok may be fearless but is surely not stupid. Bear in mind, Turok the Proud: Discretion (an exercising of free will) is the better part of valor. Better a live coward than a dead hero. Better red than dead. I trust I have made myself obscure.