Last I heard is we don't want any more of their oil.Originally Posted by desiresjab
Last I heard is we don't want any more of their oil.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I really don't care what the Koran says. Or the Bible. YALASH's version of hell is not eternal and it is more like a nurturing hospital. I like that idea better.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I said the world.
I do too. I find it much easier to accept. One difference between you and me is I don't run out to shout I believe that, every time I hear a good idea. You run from thread to thread proclaiming you believe all matter is conscious because you say electrons are obviously making choices when we ask them questions.
Be a wave, now, if you want cherry pie and become a particle if you prefer apple. Be a wave if you believe in the doctrine of Free Will but a particle if are convinced of determinism. Electrons can answer all kinds of deep questions for us, it appears. Should I marry? Hmmm., the particle form says yes.
I believe your first necessary step is to convince anyone that electrons are being asked questions. I am not convinced of that. Something besides a binary result is preferable. When I ask a cannonball if it wants to fall, it always makes the same decision when I drop it. Cannonballs are stubborn, though.
Last edited by desiresjab; 03-30-2016 at 03:43 PM.
It is possible that some religions, especially those for which key texts were the work of one author (The Book of Mormon or the Quran, for example) are "made up". The term "made up" implies "fictional" -- intentional invention by a single author. However, most religions are traditional, and their texts are based on oral traditions which combine history, poetry, and supernatural claims (among other things). They are not "made up" by anyone.
In addition, many aspects of religion cannot be reasonably called either "true" or "false". It would be silly to apply those words to rituals like confession, or meditation, or singing in church.
Did Homer "make up" the Iliad? He probably added his personal and poetic touches to the story, but the story was traditional and historical (at least, meant to be historical).
Religion is like language. Esperanto was "made up". English "developed". Few doubt language is a human creation (hence language courses at universities are "Humanities", like courses in Religion). Since desiresjab seems to despise "made up" things, it's surprising to see him posting on a literature board; novels and poems are "made up" (although religion is not). As for Gods being "puny", dj's description of them as such defies history, reason, and common sense. Allah and Jehovah loom gigantically over the world of both the devout and the atheistic, for better or for worse.
That probably goes for the world as well considering the price of oil.
I didn't understand your other post about "believing" and "being a wave" now and then "being a particle" later, so I'll just skip it. It's OK with me if you want to believe something or if you want to believe you don't believe anything.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
"Moslem mangling" might be the alliterative panacea to your world's ills, not mine. You're parochial to me pal
Ecurb: "It is possible that some religions, especially those for which key texts were the work of one author (The Book of Mormon or the Quran, for example) are "made up"."
Author (wikipedia): "An author is broadly defined as "the person who originated or gave existence to anything" and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created. Narrowly defined, an author is the originator of any written work and can also be described as a writer."
I can't speak for the Quran, perhaps more enlightened readers may be more informed and weigh in, but it is also possible that they are works inspired by God, as I believe, brought forth by prophets of God.
The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ was written by many writers, abridged by one writer, and translated vocally by one individual to a scribe (I believe a total of 3-scribes total were used, one at a time) https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/10/w...ormon?lang=eng
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
tailor
who am I but a stitch in time
what if I were to bare my soul
would you see me origami
7-8-2015
I insist all religions are made up. They are mere guesses reacting with events of nature like thunder and death, installed as fact. The rituals and confessions et al were made up afterwards, that does not make them any less made up, even if someone insists they were "inspired." Storytellers used to be in charge of explaining the universe, remember? Superstition, then its cousin religion (which is superstition taken to belief) became the official storyteller. We folk have been at it for a long time. Maybe that is why humans are fantastic storytellers--we learned it from those who made up the universe out of personal notions and perceptions of nature.
In the mid 16th century it was determined by the council of Trent that salvation was acheived through grace + good works. Someone had received word from on high. But someone else--the new protestants--had gotten a different word from on high--salvation is acheived through grace alone.
How about this? Neither one of them has the slightest idea what they are talking about. They do not know if there is any salvation, because they do not know if there is even a god. Of course that does not stop them. It makes them go the harder. They must make up hundreds of rituals, define heresy, create decrees, issue proclamations and condemnations, pray, confess, face east, kneel, genuflex, avert their eyes, mollify Heammawihio, all because that exactly is what the creator prescribed, that is the precise inspiration someone at some time got from on high. Why else decree that everyone perform the ritual, if the message is not inspired from on high?
It was not enough to say: It is a nice symbolic gesture to face the kaaba while we pray. Instead, it must be so if you wish to please God the maximum and not get his ire up. If you are mistakenly praying west, then suddenly turn east, God is immediately more pleased and responsive to your spirit. Continue facing west, and a more devout moslem of the temple may justifiably whet his scimitar as he eyes your scrawny neck.
The King James bible is supposed to be inspired, too, if you ask the right people. They will tell you every word is as God wanted it because he saw to that himself. Hogwash to that as well.
Fiction is wonderful, but not for defining physical laws. We came up with something better for that, but creaation tales and "instructions" from old books are still taken seriously though shown to be hogwash i.e., irrelevant to any physical laws or good sense.
Long, narrative fiction is a high acheivement in language on both sides of the word. The value of the Bible and other ancient religious texts is that they offer insights into the way people of particular ancient cultures lived, often in a chronoglically datable fashion applicable to wider contexts, not because they are still good models to believe and write social ordinance upon. To be a reasonable person and yet a modern follower of one of the major religions, one must discard so much the Book instructs is true, why even call one's self a christian or moslem anymore? Devotees can reject the mythologies of all but their own religion.
Most forthright christians, for instance, would have to check off a long list of biblical declarations they do not take literally. The same is true in any religion. God meant something other than what folks thought before; they did not realize God was speaking symbolically.
We have Odin and Zeus in their proper place, but we just cannot get the same job done with Jehovah and Allah.
Last edited by desiresjab; 03-30-2016 at 08:42 PM.
desiresjab : "I insist all religions are made up."
Opinion... nuff said.
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
tailor
who am I but a stitch in time
what if I were to bare my soul
would you see me origami
7-8-2015
What I believe is you have to first demonstrate that a question is really being asked by the placement of slits and observation relays.
I believe two is the successor of one, don't I? I believe all propositions true anywhere in mathematics would have equivalencies in any possible universe, don't I?
Do you call that nothing?
Those are things that simply must be believed in. I do not know of anything else that simply must be believed in for every universe, even the laws of chemistry.
I have a high opinion of fiction--too high to drone on for paragraph after paragraph about why or what it is.
I'm puzzled by your references to mathematics as something you believe in, but maybe what you believe in is that mathematics is not only a model of reality, but it also is reality. I'll take an example from Jimena Canales' book, "The Physicist and the Philosopher". Do you believe that time is a continuum of instants in reality? In mathematical models it is such a continuum, but is the mathematical model more than a model? It it real? After reading Canales' book, it is not something I believe in.
Mathematical models are true in any universe just like the rules for playing chess are true in any universe. You claim that you believe in these rules to play the game of chess or the games of mathematics, but it is not something one normally "believes" to be true. It is something one "assumes" to be true. If one wants to play those games, one has to make the appropriate assumptions, that is, play by the rules of the game.
What requires a major leap of credulity is to believe that real kings and queens move in the real world the way chess pieces move. Most people have enough sense not to believe that even though they accept the rules of chess. What requires a similarly major leap of credulity, which many people actually do make, is to claim that the mathematical continuum of time is not only in the mathematical model, but also in the real world. But is it? That was the whole debate between Einstein and Bergson in the 20th century that Canales described.
Let's see if I can bring this digression back to the point of the thread. YALASH is trying to argue in favor of the Muslim religion as his group of Muslims practice it in spite of the existence of terrorism caused by other Muslims. He rejects this terrorism. He interprets the Koran differently than other Muslims.
I could view the Koran as a "game" or a "model" of reality much like a mathematical model providing an understanding of reality. Can one play the Koran game without resorting to terrorism? I think one should be able to do that although I think there may be problems with some players of the Koran game that lead them to terrorism, just like some players of the Christian Gospels game become antisemitic. However, one can play the Christian Gospels game or model of reality without resorting to antisemitism since not all Christians are antisemitic.
Last edited by YesNo; 03-31-2016 at 12:03 AM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Peace be on you.
Quran is in Arabic, when such issue raises, original words should be seen:
There is no doubt that the abiding of evil-doers in hell is mentioned in some verses of the Holy Quran to be for "abad " which sometimes means prospective eternity, but " abad" also signifies a long time. And there are numerous passages in the Holy Quran showing that those in hell shall ultimately be taken out.
Thus, in ch. 6: v. 129, the Quran says: "God said, Verily the fire is your resort to dwell therein unless thy Lord will it otherwise, verily, thy Lord is wise and knowing." On another occasion, those in hell are spoken of as "staying therein for years" (ch. 78: v. 23). The original word is "Ahqab" which is the plural of "huqub", meaning a year or years, or seventy or eighty years, or a long time (see Lanes Arabic Lexicon).
Ref: https://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000017.html
Peace be on you and everyone. Online Books on Moral and Spiritual Reforms.
Mathematics is that which cannot be otherwise. It is the only thing I know of which cannot be otherwise. It is not a model of anything. You are confusing mathematics with mathematical models, something you scold others for. Bad boy. Many features of the universe seem to follow in the shadow of mathematics. Now is that surprising, given that mathematics is that which cannot be otherwise?
I do not have an opinion on this, let alone a belief. I would not mind having one.
It doesn't have to be more to be real. It is no pine tree, but it is real, just like the rules of chess are real, to use your own example. It was a good example. Too bad you fouled the development of it up with your dadburned biases and misconceptions.
There you go, confusing the two again. You old sophist. Mathematics is true in any universe. Models are something we build.
There was a huge, pointless discussion over whether mathematics is a story. Please, no, not another one over whether it is a game.
In Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, there is a beautiful phrase: The ineluctable modality of the visible, which occurs in the thoughts of Daedalus as he walks the beach.
Math is the ineluctable modality of the abstract. There may be other ineluctable modalities as well, I just don't know about them.
What is this red herring? Ineluctable does not mean easy. As Russel famously said,
"...it must have required many ages to discover that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days were both instances of the number two."
I guess people do. You know that I don't. Irrational and transcendental points exist as abstractions on the number line. They exist in this universe as ideals that only get approximated when translated to number line space. How they might apply or not to the nature of time is an open question, which is why two giants were not able to settle it.
We can divide any interval of time ad infinitum on paper. Whether or not time itself is so divisible is one of those big questions that may never be answered but only "remodeled" from time to time.
You could, but it would be a waste of time. The Koran and Bible are not part of an ineluctable modality of the visible or of the abstract. Their so called truths are opinions, that cannot be proven to anyone. I can prove to anyone that two is the successor of one, or that person is a halfwit. The small scraps of practical advice in the aforementioned texts is far outweighed by the abundance of blathering nonsense passed off as wisdom.
One could even play the love game without resorting to love. Who wants to?
First a story, then a game, maybe next a dance.
Religion has only lasted in a superficial sense. Politicians must claim a religion. No one believes the hogwash anymore, but old institutions die hard and slow. Look how long it is taking the U.S. to adapt to the metric system. That's peanuts.
The import and impact of religion will continue waning among the masses. The Bible and Koran will be trimmed to the size of first volumes of poetry for the flash generations ahead, and be better for it.
Just as normal believers from Plymouth Rock would be considered fanatics today, normal believers from today will be considered fanatics in 100 years due to the acceleration of social evolution. In 300 years this stuff will seem as far behind us as Greek and Norse mythology are now. The general consensus on anyone who takes religion seriously will be they are a fanatic or a halfwit, at vey best an eccentric.
Last edited by desiresjab; 03-31-2016 at 05:12 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
