morcus
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 06:52 AM |
|
|
Just too point out, atheism isn't a religion, it's a religious belief but there are alot of atheist religions.
As a response to something said earlier in this post, Many people have been killed by Atheists for believing in God(s), But I doubt many people have
been killed in the name of Agnostism.
Going back to the OP, Is God not a legally deffined entity in Scots Law? I would think that would be the case.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 09:47 AM |
|
|
I'm going to turn this towards an autmotive direction.
Take F1 cars.
Aerodynamics in particular.
At any given time, there are always designers pushing for something more, a better way of doing things. Trying to discover the little tweak that the
other guys haven't thought of. They do all of these things because of what they think the air will do.
Up to a point, they know what it will do, but there is always an element of trying things because they might work.
Or they might not.
If there were absolute scientific answers to all of these problems, there would be no need to experiment. If we already know all of the answers
because science has already given us the answers, we don't need to conduct experiments.
We experiment, because we don't know everything.
Think about the sentence above for a few hours and then read on.
Medicine and pharmocology in particular are a bit the same.
Often a medicine will be created or experimented which has a beneficial effect to a condition, but the manufacturers don't know why. All they
know is that it works. They don't know why. It just works. But we don't know why.
The greatest minds will readily concede that whereas the human race might know more about our existence and the physical space in which we experience
it than we may previously have had, there is much more to do with our existence of which we still have no concept.
Yes, we have put in place structures, society, socially acceptable norms and procedures which make it easier to deal with what we don't
understand, but ultimately, we know little about how or why we are here.
That's my thoughts on the subject. Far better to be considered carefully than casually disposed of because of a dislike for the mass failings of
organised religion of which there have been many and no doubt will continue to be.
This guy is in a much more credible position than I could ever be in a thousand lifetimes, so
maybe best if you consider his views. I believe he is generally considered to be something of an authority.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 10:13 AM |
|
|
Fresh on this morning...
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
Religion (or not) is a personal thing, you either belive in a god or not. That is your choice. Some things are explainable, some things are not. Again
that is a personal view point. What or who (if you believe in god) you choose to call your god is down to you (and the group of believers that you
might or might not belong to).
My personal belief is between me and my god, the diety knows what I believe and how I choose to show it (or not) It is two way, sometimes I will loose
my god and sometimes my god will loose me. Sometimes things just have an order to them and what is, IS. Generally speaking most religious followings
are run by someone, because being in-charge of a religious order means money and power, but not always (just incase you think I might be casting
dispersions at you or your religious belief).
One day (about 28 years ago) I went shore diving on the south coast, solo (yes BIG naughty), and when I surfaced to check my position and return to
shore I found I was about a mile and a half off shore with an off shore current. Low air in bottle so I roll onto my back and started finning for the
shore. 5 minutes later a voice behind me says "Do you want a lift mate?.". A couple of people in an RIB had appeared out of no-where. Go
figure, was it devine intervention or just dumb good luck. ?????
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
To be pedantic..........
The word Universe can be used as both a singular and countable noun and therefore can be used in a plural form.
Scientists often speculate about parallel universes
Back to topic.............
Phil
So I expect they will be changing the definition of 'everything' as well. So that we will start hearing stuff like "well, when I
said everything, I didn't actually mean everything, I meant something." Or we could take it idea of changing the meaning of words even
further, how about "it's in the fridge" also meaning "It's in the cupboard", or BEC meaning a car with a car
engine in it.
The meaning of words can become obsolete, but their usage is still pervasive. Take 'atom' for example, it originally meant
'indivisible', but an atom is very far from that. We still talk about atoms, but we no longer think they can't be split into
smaller components.
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 11:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
The meaning of words can become obsolete, but their usage is still pervasive. Take 'atom' for example, it originally meant
'indivisible', but an atom is very far from that. We still talk about atoms, but we no longer think they can't be split into
smaller components.
The atom example, though good in itself, doesn't actually apply, because as more and more realities are discovered or postulated, the definition
of 'universe' simply expands to accommodate them.
The reason why universe has become, in some circles only, a word that can be pluralised is simply because the people concerned were too lazy or
unimaginative to come up with a new word for what they really meant, which was of course, a piece, section, part, whatever, of the existing universe
(which does, of course, include everything).
It could be that some people find the idea of infinite space upsetting, they feel that there has to be an end to it somewhere. Then, of course, as
soon as there is an end, a wall, barrier of whatever, then they start speculating about what is on the other side. They should try to grasp what
universe means, and think up a different word for the pieces of universe that they are referring to as 'universes'
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 12:04 PM |
|
|
I'd say the word 'universe' changing in meaning as science becomes more advanced is exactly the same as what has happened to the
word 'atom'.
However, looking in the Oxford Concise, the most applicable definition there is "all existing things; the whole creation; the cosmos". We
can only test the existence of something in this universe. It does not preclude the existence of universes which contain things that the cannot test
the existence of.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
Just to move this away from dictionary corner.....
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 12:11 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Macbeast
... Hitler and Stalin killed millions without the need to use God as an excuse...
I knew Godwins Law would pop-up early in this one!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
Madinventions
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
Quick cards on the table moment: For me, the concept of a God-like divine being (in any religion) is ridiculous. However, I did read the bible some
time ago, which is just like reading any other work of fiction, and I can understand the origins of many of the misconceptions held within it.
I can accept that a bloke called Jesus wandered around, and created a cult following - this can be seen happening in the modern day world (Waco was
an example of this). But, nothing he was reported to have done could not be achieved by a talented illusionist such as David Blane, or Penn and
Teller, and it would be quite easy for someone like Derren Brown to create the same mass hypnosis and NLP effects that are written about.
Water into wine - simple illusion.
Bread and fish - sleight of hand.
Rolling the stone and disappearing from the cave - escapology.
'My dad is God' - hypnosis.
etc..
It's when people don't understand these tricks and say that they are miracles (and blow them out of all proportion) that things become
silly. And when they start to defend their views by killing others 'in the name of God' that it all becomes a little bit too much.
Hopefully one day there will be a common-sense revolution and all of this religion stuff will no longer be fashionable and be set aside so that the
human race can progress?
Mojo build diary: http://www.madinventions.co.uk
Solo music project: Syrrenfor http://www.reverbnation.com/syrrenfor
View my band website:
http://www.shadowlight.org.uk
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk/
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
I'd say the word 'universe' changing in meaning as science becomes more advanced is exactly the same as what has happened to the
word 'atom'.
However, looking in the Oxford Concise, the most applicable definition there is "all existing things; the whole creation; the cosmos". We
can only test the existence of something in this universe. It does not preclude the existence of universes which contain things that the cannot test
the existence of.
If a significant proportion of the population were to start referring to the things we eat at as 'chairs', and the things we sit on as
'tables', it would be the duty of any decent dictionary to include those meanings. They might even include usage notes, such as "a
chair and four tables".
It may be that scientists feel that things we can't test the existence of should fall outside the definition of 'everything' but
that is where they are making the same basic mistake as when they pluralise 'universe' they are attempting to set limits. For
instance, in your point above, the limit is those things we can test the existence of.
Try this for an example- someone writes a list of all the parts in a car. This is everything that is in that car, they say. Then someone comes along
and says they have found some more bits, or they postulate that there may be other bits but that we can't see them, or otherise prove that they
are there or not there. Now the original mistake was in saying that a complete list had been written. If that had not been done, then the simple
statement "everything that is in that car" would have described everything that was in it, whether or not the existence of some of those
bits could be tested.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 15/1/11 at 01:03 PM |
|
|
"God is...a gas... CO2... no wait, that's the devil" A.Partridge
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
