The Religious Discussion of 2012

[johnnyrodgers20]

The word ignorant has been used in a derogatory fashion for years and i think you misunderstand shark. Ignorant just means lack of knowledge. Everyone is ignorant about certain issues. When I was young I was ignorant of the fact that the earth revolved around the sun. As I grew and was taught I learned that the earth indeed does revolve around the sun. If you are ignorant about the Christian faith it isn't bad or good just a fact. Once you have the kowledge what you do with it is up to you.

.

 

Ignorant just means lack of knowledge respect for others' opinions. Everyone is ignorant about certain issues. Once you have the knowledge respect for others' opinions, what you do with it is up to you.

You might want to look up ignorant in the dictionary

 

 

I suggest you either learn to comprehend better or get a new dictionary.

 

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/

 

 

Adjective:

• Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
  
• Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
  

[johnnyrodgers20]

The word ignorant has been used in a derogatory fashion for years and i think you misunderstand shark. Ignorant just means lack of knowledge. Everyone is ignorant about certain issues. When I was young I was ignorant of the fact that the earth revolved around the sun. As I grew and was taught I learned that the earth indeed does revolve around the sun. If you are ignorant about the Christian faith it isn't bad or good just a fact. Once you have the kowledge what you do with it is up to you.

.

 

Ignorant just means lack of knowledge respect for others' opinions. Everyone is ignorant about certain issues. Once you have the knowledge respect for others' opinions, what you do with it is up to you.

You might want to look up ignorant in the dictionary

 

Your right. Stubborn is the correct word. My fault.

 

how so? Enlighten me!!

[jsneb83]

The word ignorant has been used in a derogatory fashion for years and i think you misunderstand shark. Ignorant just means lack of knowledge. Everyone is ignorant about certain issues. When I was young I was ignorant of the fact that the earth revolved around the sun. As I grew and was taught I learned that the earth indeed does revolve around the sun. If you are ignorant about the Christian faith it isn't bad or good just a fact. Once you have the kowledge what you do with it is up to you.

.

 

Ignorant just means lack of knowledge respect for others' opinions. Everyone is ignorant about certain issues. Once you have the knowledge respect for others' opinions, what you do with it is up to you.

You might want to look up ignorant in the dictionary

 

Your right. Stubborn is the correct word. My fault.

 

how so? Enlighten me!!

I think the right word would be intolerant, which means not tolerating or respecting one's beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.

[Husker_x]

I don't have any specific questions regarding the above paragraph because nowhere in there did I grasp what you meant by the 'spiritual energy of the universe.'

 

What is the spiritual energy of the universe? What are its properties? What can it be said to do that we can observe or test? How is this different from what we might normally call 'energy'? Spiritual energy is not a concept I'm familiar with. Granted, I'm not a scientist, but this sounds very suspicious.

 

What make a collection of DNA a human being?

 

My best guess is the presence of a spirit and a soul.

 

Our soul is our essence, it is what is reincarnated from one lifetime to another.

 

Spirit is the life force given to each of us by a higher being.

 

It sounds like the kind of thing someone might just make up.

 

Edgar Cayce

 

This is the part of religious thought I just don't understand. Someone maybe can help me out here. You start off with a really good question--what makes a human a human? This might in some sense even be answerable as neuroscience advances. You posit a soul as the answer to the question, which isn't even necessarily a bad hypothesis, provided you can come up with some way to test and verify it. The part that I don't understand--and probably will never understand--is how and why you then heap on top of an admitted 'best guess' both reincarnation and a supreme being who acted on our behalf to grant us what you guess it granted us. It's also worth noting that after you defined your term, you didn't even attempt to answer any of the follow up questions.

 

So in the end we're exactly where we started. Nothing new has been discovered. Nothing new has been demonstrated. All we have now is more mysteries on top of the first one, founded on nothing, and answering nothing.

[knapplc]

This is the part of religious thought I just don't understand. Someone maybe can help me out here. You start off with a really good question--what makes a human a human? This might in some sense even be answerable as neuroscience advances. You posit a soul as the answer to the question, which isn't even necessarily a bad hypothesis, provided you can come up with some way to test and verify it. The part that I don't understand--and probably will never understand--is how and why you then heap on top of an admitted 'best guess' both reincarnation and a supreme being who acted on our behalf to grant us what you guess it granted us. It's also worth noting that after you defined your term, you didn't even attempt to answer any of the follow up questions.

 

So in the end we're exactly where we started. Nothing new has been discovered. Nothing new has been demonstrated. All we have now is more mysteries on top of the first one, founded on nothing, and answering nothing.

 

Also, in the absence of a present and readily perceivable god, that's all we ever will have. The discussion of "proof" simply cannot advance in a meaningful way while god remains hidden. We already have the Bible, and it is a finished product, unable to be added to, because there is no more Jesus, no more burning bush, no more overt acts by God to influence mankind, and we know this because the Bible tells us that Jesus is the final covenant, and there will be no more.

 

It is an exceedingly convenient situation for the Church, because they can continue to point to the Bible and demand that it be accepted wholly on faith, without any proof. It's just that the world is, more and more, unwilling to rely on such explanations.

[johnnyrodgers20]

jsneb quote: I think the right word would be intolerant, which means not tolerating or respecting one's beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.

 

 

I am thinking you got your signals crossed here Mills apparently crossed out knowledge but I think he meant to cross out ignorant, am I corract in your assumption?

[Sub-Husker]

As far as I know energy cannot be created from nothing, and every reaction requires some sort of catalyst.

 

If there was nothing (matter or energy in our four dimensions) before the big bang, then what caused it?

 

What was there before the big bang, then?

 

Per what our science knows... nothing in the four dimensions that we know to exist.

 

Beyond that, I dunno.

 

Perhaps god.

[knapplc]

For current pre-universe existence theories, look up string theory and branes. It's fun reading.

[Hoosker]

jsneb quote: I think the right word would be intolerant, which means not tolerating or respecting one's beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.

 

 

I am thinking you got your signals crossed here Mills apparently crossed out knowledge but I think he meant to cross out ignorant, am I corract in your assumption?

 

I was just mixed up on word choice. I apologize.

[Sub-Husker]

This is the part of religious thought I just don't understand. Someone maybe can help me out here. You start off with a really good question--what makes a human a human? This might in some sense even be answerable as neuroscience advances. You posit a soul as the answer to the question, which isn't even necessarily a bad hypothesis, provided you can come up with some way to test and verify it. The part that I don't understand--and probably will never understand--is how and why you then heap on top of an admitted 'best guess' both reincarnation and a supreme being who acted on our behalf to grant us what you guess it granted us. It's also worth noting that after you defined your term, you didn't even attempt to answer any of the follow up questions.

 

Earlier in this thread (or was it one of the other religious threads) I admitted that it was a best guest, and was unmeasurable with today's technology. I have also stated that there is no prrof of a supreme being, but by using logic it fit what had been scientifically observed and measured.

 

What you are doing is very childish. I have admitted over and over the limitations of proof in what I believe, but you keep insisting on firmer answers. Well I don't have the proof to give you, and I never said I did. And if you ask again I will give you a similar answer.

 

I also said that I could write a book on the subject, but did not have the time. I prefer to answer specific questions, and will do so to the best of my ability. But If I tell you I do not know, even after you keep asking me again and again I still won't know.

 

And whwn someone goes with phrases like "why you then heap on top of an admitted best guess", I figure that you have transitioned from curiosity mode to criticism mode. I believe that we are done here.

 

So in the end we're exactly where we started. Nothing new has been discovered. Nothing new has been demonstrated. All we have now is more mysteries on top of the first one, founded on nothing, and answering nothing.

 

I can suggest additional reading, but I doubt you're interested. You had already indicated that.

 

You sound like the type of person who would do better with a "faith in the box" religion, where someone spoon feeds you a few short explanations.

[Sub-Husker]

I did not say that I was correct in my personal beliefs.

 

I did not say others were wrong in their personal beliefs.

 

I did not comdemn anyone else to hell, New Jersey, or any other foul place.

 

I am trying to follow scientific methodology... but am stuck at #4.

 

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

 

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

 

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

 

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

[jsneb83]

jsneb quote: I think the right word would be intolerant, which means not tolerating or respecting one's beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.

 

 

I am thinking you got your signals crossed here Mills apparently crossed out knowledge but I think he meant to cross out ignorant, am I corract in your assumption?

I'm confused

 

No I was thinking Mills was thinking of stubborn to describe the lacking of respect part that he replaced in your original post. I probably misunderstood so you can disregard it.

[knapplc]

Also, in the absence of a present and readily perceivable god, that's all we ever will have. The discussion of "proof" simply cannot advance in a meaningful way while god remains hidden. We already have the Bible, and it is a finished product, unable to be added to, because there is no more Jesus, no more burning bush, no more overt acts by God to influence mankind, and we know this because the Bible tells us that Jesus is the final covenant, and there will be no more.

 

It is an exceedingly convenient situation for the Church, because they can continue to point to the Bible and demand that it be accepted wholly on faith, without any proof. It's just that the world is, more and more, unwilling to rely on such explanations.

 

I did not say that I was correct in my personal beliefs.

 

I did not say others were wrong in their personal beliefs.

 

I did not comdemn anyone else to hell, New Jersey, or any other foul place.

 

I am trying to follow scientific methodology... but am stuck at #4.

 

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

 

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

 

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

 

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my statements and responded with this. In no way was that directed at you, and in no way does what you posted have anything to do with what I wrote.

[johnnyrodgers20]

jsneb quote: I think the right word would be intolerant, which means not tolerating or respecting one's beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.

 

 

I am thinking you got your signals crossed here Mills apparently crossed out knowledge but I think he meant to cross out ignorant, am I corract in your assumption?

 

I was just mixed up on word choice. I apologize.

 

It s all good just trying to follow your line of thinking.

[Sub-Husker]

For current pre-universe existence theories, look up string theory and branes. It's fun reading.

 

It is, which is why I have specified four dimensional space/time as what we have observed and measured.

 

The Second Law of Thermo required defined boundaries, and extra dimensional movement of mass and energy violates defined boundaries.