If you have questions that christianity can't answer...

Phadreus · 06-06-2007, 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Well of course not... but I wouldn't mind if they let me do it... I think I could do a great deal of good in the world if they would just let me thin out the heard of dumbasses

Who are "they"????

leelover · 06-06-2007, 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Well of course not... but I wouldn't mind if they let me do it... I think I could do a great deal of good in the world if they would just let me thin out the heard of dumbasses

That's one thing I really do respect about you, you may be an asshole, but at least you are an HONEST asshole

*sinfuldragon* · 06-06-2007, 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phadreus

Who are "they"????

"The man" You know... the only reason most people keep in line is because they don't want to go to jail. If there were no physical consequences most everyone would take care of things themselves. We might all like to think its because of their moral compass but the fact it there are many people per week that I would kick the **** out of for being stupid and almost killing me but I don't care to go to jail so I have to exercise restraint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

That's one thing I really do respect about you, you may be an asshole, but at least you are an HONEST asshole

I try to tell the story as straight as I can.

analogbear · 06-07-2007, 11:46 AM

[quote=leelover;609571][quote=analogbear;609489]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

I wasn't supposing all your parameters. You said "as long as it is pointing in the right direction". I just want to know how YOU would know that. If your answer includes the "AND IF"'s you posted thats fine, but I don't want to color your definition.

I would not personally use those "and-ifs" that I posted, I was using them as an example of how someone discussing the topic might narrow down the discussion of particular right/wrong judgements...But, here is a peek inside my mind, scary as that might be, and if anyone has a question, I might suggest looking at some Kant...

I would have to say that: the only thing good, actually good thing, is a good will.
This means a well-intentioned will.
Well, what is a well intentioned will? One that makes its well-intentioned decisions freely.
A free will is one that motivates action without internal compulsions (desires, hunger, emotional wants, love) or external compulsions (duress, adherence to organizational-rules), and so is "free" to be good or bad; so a truly good, well intentioned free will must ascribe to pure reason, not those internal/external compulsions.
The "good" comes from not contradicting...
This leads to a free will that follows a basic non-contradictory principle. If something is going to be a rule to live by, it ought to be the same for everyone...In all situations...And not contradict. This is called by Kant "The Categorical Imperative." Example: You can steal...OK, because stealing requires taking something belonging to someone else, after a little while, nobody will own anything that isn't stolen...That is a contradiction, because you can't deprive the rightful owner of something he has no right to own. Or, Lying: You can lie...OK, but lying only works when the listener has an expectation of hearing the truth...After a time, if lying is expected, there is no presumption of truthfulness on the part of the listener, so no ability to lie to your listener. So, contradiction...

OK, ultimately this leads to the idea that any will that follows this non-contradiction principle, this categorical imperative, is a will that respects the will of others, as an equal will, as an equal moral person. As such, it is an idea that we will not "use" other people as "means to an end."

There are some problems with the practical application of this, but they can be dealt with fairly easily.

analogbear · 06-07-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck_0069

How about, How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck_0069

sure he was a carpenter but not a woodchuck. I think I got one that couldn't be answered by the all knowing OZ.

What type of wood? Hard, pine, bamboo?
What size woodchuck, and what age?
All teeth present? What is the time limit? And, isn't the first question in response really: "CAN a woodchuck actually chuck wood?!"

*sinfuldragon* · 06-07-2007, 11:53 AM

This is fun... like a magic 8 ball but better

analogbear · 06-07-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

This is fun... like a magic 8 ball but better

"It Is Decidedly So"

leelover · 06-07-2007, 1:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

This is fun... like a magic 8 ball but better

And just as accurate!

HCCAFan · 06-07-2007, 2:46 PM

Anyone have some riddalin I can use to read this over again?

analogbear · 06-07-2007, 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

And just as accurate!

Only your posts...Mine are right on the money.

analogbear · 06-07-2007, 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HCCAFan

Anyone have some riddalin I can use to read this over again?

Ritalin

No.

.OrgOwner · 10-05-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

What type of wood? Hard, pine, bamboo?
What size woodchuck, and what age?
All teeth present? What is the time limit? And, isn't the first question in response really: "CAN a woodchuck actually chuck wood?!"

I'm pretty sure "chuck" is a slang term unless of course it the name Chuck.

Juggernaut · 10-05-2007, 9:57 AM

Here's one for your Imam-in-training (seriously). If the Koran (or Q'uran)existed since the beginning of time and was only written down after Gabriel recited it to Mohammed over the years, how did God abrogate himself? The reason I ask is because the Suras weren't collected and arranged until after Mohammed's death, and then arranged not in chronological order but by length. There are passages that are seemingly contradictory but the Muslim faith teaches God can change his mind, just like man, and He can negate past statements and the new ones become Sharia. Here's what I don't understand:
1) If the Koran really did exist for all time, why would Mohammed's transcription contain those contradictory statements? Or, when would God have had the time to change His mind?
2) Why wouldn't Gabriel have just told Mohammed the only the current Sharias instead of including all the abrogated material?
3) Is/are there any current prophets since Mohammed's time? Maybe God changed his mind again in the past 1400 years? If He did, why wouldn't He send some messengers to spread His "new" Word?

analogbear · 10-06-2007, 1:22 AM

Owner: Sure, take the linguistic-interpretation easy way out...

Juggernaut: Wow, gonna make me remember siht, huh...OK, 1) Because it was Muhammad, not God...Transcritption errors are always the prophet's fault...Plus, I think we can refer back to the: 2) levitical Law of God, which did evolve...Into the three major monothiestic religions. That is to what I think the "changing mind" refers...The whole package tells a story, and that makes it important.
3) Well, according to the Imams, no; no new prophets...But, as sons of a verified tribe of the chosen people, frankly it would be a blasphemy to NOT accept an actual prophet from one of the other related centers of religious authority...That said, is Mr. Smith a legitimate prophet? I don't know...

solorsix · 10-11-2007, 3:39 PM

If God made praying mantises 12 feet tall and ants the size of dogs would we the humans be screwed?

analogbear · 10-11-2007, 4:23 PM

Absolutely...But, better yet: what if ants were the size of large dogs...

.OrgOwner · 10-11-2007, 5:40 PM

Now where did I hear the story about the aliens that sent a massive invasion force to take over the earth, their plans went off the rails due to a slight miscalculation of scale when their entire army was sniffed up by a small dog.. Hitchhikers guide or something..

Shang Wolf · 10-14-2007, 8:42 PM

This whole section is a joke right?

analogbear · 10-22-2007, 8:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shang Wolf

This whole section is a joke right?

It started out as a tongue-in-cheek response to a buddy who is a bible thumper. I am not a BT, but it IS a tenet of MY religion to poke as much fun at religious people as I possibly can; so, I tried to answer these questions as seriously as possible when presented to me as a childish and insulting mirror to religious people who feel it necessary to believe in some invisible man, rather than what they see. But, again, many of the answers here, by both myself and some several others, are serious and rational, even in response to oft-times ridiculuous questions.

Bigdaddy75 · 11-16-2007, 6:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

. I am not a BT, but it IS a tenet of MY religion to poke as much fun at religious people as I possibly can; .

Have you ever watched Dave Allen? A master at poking fun when it comes to religion...

Scrat01 · 11-26-2007, 8:21 AM

Jesus died for our sins. Only one man gets to go to heaven (the fella beside Jesus on the cross) in the bible. Does a person who has commited the worst of atrocities (our crimes) get to go to heaven? If so, because I am agnostic, where do I fit in? (I live by the rules of concience and try to do no harm).

dicedreams2000 · 11-26-2007, 11:43 AM

I have a good one.

In a boxing match, who would win, Chuck Norris or God?

I say Chuck Norris, especially with his deadly roundhouse kicks.

trippd · 02-10-2008, 8:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Bring 'em here...I will, in consultation with my three best friends (an Imam-in-training, a New Age Healer, and a Professor of Philosophy) try to get you a rational, pragmatic answer that is based on reason and observable energies, forces, and historical perspectives.

Wacko-Religious nuts need not post.

What kind of rational, pragmatic answer can you possibly expect from a new age healer & an Imam-in-traning?