[X-Vector]

Mr.Flibble, on 06 June 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

For everything I have against Jehovah's Witnesses, I'll give them that they have retention.

So does the Mob.

[Master Fibbles]

Cathy, on 06 June 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

I always wanted to ask. Is "Old Testament" the same book for Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Forge, on 06 June 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

they're close in correspondence, but not exactly the same.

Actually, they kind of are the same, to the extent that all three recognize the same books (the Tanakh) as a sacred text. Muslims don't revere the Hebrew Bible (*) anywhere near how they revere the Qur'an, but they recognize what agrees with the Qur'an in it (a fair amount). Catholic and Orthodox bibles have more than the Tanakh since they recognize some Greek texts that were used as Jewish scripture at some point but are not extant in Hebrew (and some were never in Hebrew).

I haven't spent enough time studying Islam to really answer this, but I would like to have a lengthy discussion with an educated Muslim about our respective sacred texts.

(*)I'm still not sure what is the PC way to refer to this. Hebrew Bible, Jewish Bible, Jewish Scriptures, Tanakh, Old Testament....


Sacred texts interest me in and of themselves, but my real interest lies in language so I'm taking time off school to work in the "real world" (which sucks) and consider my options in the future. If I go back to school for a PhD, it will be in Classics or Linguistics. Because I'm working in a business now, I'm also considering getting an MBA part time so I can better understand some of the aspects of business (but, really, I can probably figure it out n my own).

[Radar]

C:\WINDOWS\Media\onestop.mid

[Jimmy]

ITT: JIDF JIDF JIDF JIDF

Why are these stupid sand-religions still relevant?

[Hank]

^ because they are armed?

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Only Captain Awesome would have the audacity to basically call the Middle East a bunch of sand dunes.

[Forge]

you don't want to know what i think of the camel jockeys and their enormous cat box

[Lunick]

http://www.glaielgames.com/comic/

[Fox]

Jimmy, on 07 June 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Why are these stupid sand-religions still relevant?

Why are the other stupid religions still relevant?

[Radar]

Hank, on 07 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

^ because they are armed?

Atheists can be armed too

[Master Fibbles]

Fox, on 07 June 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Why are the other stupid religions still relevant?

Because humans, as a sentient species, are aware of both their own mortality (our own finitude) and the concept of infinity. In order to deal with this, humans latch onto the promise of immortality by something larger than themselves (religion, science, memory/fame, political ideas/sports). We either seek immortality through out own means (the people in Silicon Valley talking about cyborgs come to mind) or we seek it through other means (eternal life in a paradise).

There are, of course, those who reject these entirely, but that is fucking depressing.

[Kathy]

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

There are, of course, those who reject these entirely, but that is fucking depressing.

Indeed.

[Forge]

there's no scientific reason for there to be god(s). existence can be explained with the laws of physics.
there's no scientific reason for there not to be god(s). the same laws allow for the existence of an older and, from our perspective, "superior" being that has either planted us here, or came across us and started meddling in our affairs.
we're made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (among other things)
this "supreme" being could be hydrogen and helium based. the two elements that have been around pretty much since the beginning of the universe before stars formed, collapsed, and created the heavier elements.

if this being exists and planted us here then maybe there's something to having a "soul"
if this being exists and stumbled across us, then we're just smart monkeys

pick your poison

as far as religion. it's fine for the most part in of itself. they primarily practice peace and harmony. it's the fanatical zealots that warp their beliefs and promote aggressive dominance that need to be thrown down a well.

[Ronin]

My problem with the god theory is that there is no evidence of one or a need for one to have created the universe.

I strongly believe the god mentioned in all ancient texts does not exist.

Studies in quantum quantum physics show how things can instantly appear.

Sure there could be a god but I see no reason to assume there is one.

If there is a god, I imagine it to be some sort of cosmic scientist in a lab who probably doesn't even know we are here.

But then who or what created that god etc?

The universe and reality as much as we can observe them, seem to be fractal in nature, a never ending repeating pattern of some sort.

I can't make my mind up about any of it, but I enjoy listening to theory's.

The funny thing is, the answer is probably something really simple, I sometimes think the universe is just part of something else.

I don't think it's depressing if there is no afterlife or god, I think it makes life even more special, this is it, make the most of it.

As for reality I sometimes think that there is just one conciousness and we just individually dip into it when we are born, sort of like the universe experiencing itself.

[Forge]

Ronan, on 08 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

My problem with the god theory is that there is no evidence of one or a need for one to have created the universe.

there's no need for there to be one. there's no need for there not to be one.
it's like the material on the other side of the universe that flew the opposite direction from the particles that make up us and what we can see after the big bang.
due to some acceleration theory where the universe expanded faster then the speed of light before physical laws established themselves
we can only assume there's material over there since we'll never see its light

Quote

Studies in quantum quantum physics show how things can instantly appear.

it still takes matter to do that
it also shows that quantum particles can disappear from before your eyes and reappear (on the other side of the galaxy as far as we know)
it also shows behavior change between observed and unobserved

maybe this lab god was messing with condensed matter when he decided to observe it a little too close

[Ronin]

Forge, on 08 June 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

it still takes matter to do that

It doesn't matter. Some particles have no mass like photons.

I also like the idea of black holes spewing out new universes on the other side.

The simulation theory is interesting too, that one could make us the gods.

[Jimmy]

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

Because humans, as a sentient species, are aware of both their own mortality (our own finitude) and the concept of infinity. In order to deal with this, humans latch onto the promise of immortality by something larger than themselves (religion, science, memory/fame, political ideas/sports). We either seek immortality through out own means (the people in Silicon Valley talking about cyborgs come to mind) or we seek it through other means (eternal life in a paradise).

There are, of course, those who reject these entirely, but that is fucking depressing.

Immortality? No thanks. Life is too long as is.

[Hendricks266]

Forge, on 08 June 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

then we're just smart monkeys

We are an extremely fragile collection of proteins. I would highly recommend the article A Ghost in the Machine by Adam Lee.

Jimmy, on 08 June 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Immortality? No thanks. Life is too long as is.

One idea I like from Buddhism is the idea that existence itself equals suffering. (I'm not a Buddhist because I don't subscribe to samsara (reincarnation).)

It is true that in theory you can avoid suffering if you avoid all attachment. In "pure" Buddhism (before the philosophy was modified into the common variants you see today), nirvana, the state of having broken samsara, means to cease to exist. However, as an atheist, I believe I will achieve this state anyway at the end of my life, so as long as I live I might as well try to feel happy. (Important note: This does not mean wild and reckless. Describing the full extent of how I handle myself would require a larger amount of writing. I could best summarize it as "Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.".)

In reconciling these two beliefs, I have concluded that a person must find ways in which they continue to feel happy after the attachment severs and suffering would otherwise kick in. For example, I describe a month directing a one-act play with a cast of about 10 people (of whom a number are now close friends) for my high school as the best month of my life so far. While I was sad for a little while after it was over, the fact that such a chunk elapsed to its full extent still makes me happy when I remember it. The author John Green describes this as an "infinity". If you are able to take the advice of the quote “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.” (Dr. Seuss), then you have achieved happiness.

[Master Fibbles]

Jimmy, on 08 June 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Immortality? No thanks. Life is too long as is.

As I said, fucking depressing.

[Radar]

As hard as I try not to be, I always find myself extremely sympathetic towards religion. I just can't reject people that hope there's more to life than decaying in the ground after it's all over.

[Forge]

Ronan, on 08 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

It doesn't matter. Some particles have no mass like photons.

they do have mass. energy=mass. since they always have momentum, they have no rest mass
controversial, but measuring impacts of photons against planetary magnetic fields results in a possible weight of less than 3 × 10 to the -27

Quote

I also like the idea of black holes spewing out new universes on the other side.

how Stephen Hawking

i don't think massive black holes are big enough to rip space, but i like to combine that theory with the soap bubble theory
the universe explodes into existence at the "top" of the soap bubble. eventually all the matter collects at the "bottom" of the soap bubble and creates a super massive black hole. The density is so astronomically large that it collapses into a singularity and rips through the edge of the soap bubble and tears into the next soap bubble "bellow" it. The action creates the energy and imbalance to make the singularity explode into another universe. repeat x infinity.

[Master Fibbles]

I will likely never understand how someone can reject Aristotle's unmoved mover...

[Inspector Lagomorf]

I find it difficult to identify with the idea that immortality would be hell. If I could be immortal, I could travel around the world, see civilizations rise and then fall again, and watch the Earth change with all of its various eras and catastrophic events. It would be educational to say the least.

[Jimmy]

Hendricks266, on 08 June 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

One idea I like from Buddhism is the idea that existence itself equals suffering.

This is why I don't believe in reproduction. You're creating someone's life with absolutely no consent from them.

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

As I said, fucking depressing.

I don't find it depressing that one day it'll be over. The depressing part is everything before that.

[Hendricks266]

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

I will likely never understand how someone can reject Aristotle's unmoved mover...

I think of this as an extension to Russell's teapot. If there were such a teapot, so what? An unmoved mover per se has no effect on my life given that no afterlife theology (or any religious practice) is attached to it. Logically speaking, I would not reject an unmoved mover simply because there is no such thing as a disproof except a proof of contradiction in terms, of which the unmoved mover has none that we can falsify.

[Forge]

i plan on living forever vicariously through others

when i die, i will die alone. i will always make sure i have a pet cat. the cat will get hungry and eat my face. the cat will crap my face out into one of the flower pots in the house. people will come to clean out the house and throw out the flowerpot. a fly will land on the crap that is my face which is festering in the flowerpot. the fly will eat my crap face. the fly will go next door and land on the neighbor kid's chocolate sauce and marshmallow basted pop tart. the fly will crap my crap face on the pop tart. there's a frog on a log. the fat little bastard will eat my twice crapped face and now i'm part of him. repeat until all particles in the universe evaporate.

[Lunick]

[Jeff]

I've always talked about how when it comes time to cremate someone after a funeral, I was going to put them in a cookie jar. Some of my family members have been placed into vases (my grandpa), but I want one of them to be put in a cookie jar.

[Kathy]

Comrade Major, on 08 June 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

I find it difficult to identify with the idea that immortality would be hell. If I could be immortal, I could travel around the world, see civilizations rise and then fall again, and watch the Earth change with all of its various eras and catastrophic events. It would be educational to say the least.

If you were such a being I doubt you would care about some Earth. Would you acquire such ability now then perhaps that would be true, but being a completely different type of species the Earth would be hardly interesting to you. Although... there are people interested in insect life so you might could be aswell.

Hendricks266, on 08 June 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Logically speaking, I would not reject an unmoved mover simply because there is no such thing as a disproof except a proof of contradiction in terms, of which the unmoved mover has none that we can falsify.

Yep, it doesn't matter.

Jeff, on 08 June 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

I've always talked about how when it comes time to cremate someone after a funeral, I was going to put them in a cookie jar. Some of my family members have been placed into vases (my grandpa), but I want one of them to be put in a cookie jar.

I don't want to be put anywhere. I'd rather just disappear. On the other hand... by that time I won't care.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Presumably I imagine that "immortality" does not inherently come with the ability to travel aimlessly through worlds and galaxies.