if you watch Italian soccer you know for a fact that God doesnt exist
and if he does, he's in Berlusconi's pocket
comic relief. carry on
and if he does, he's in Berlusconi's pocket
comic relief. carry on
By Vahagn Go To PostNot the why. But the how. Religion doesn't give you the power to kill someone. You need weapons for thatPeople choke people and beat people to death with their hands all of the time. The chosen methods were fire and drowning before your "weapons" anyway for heretics.
By db Go To PostPeople choke people and beat people to death with their hands all of the time. The chosen methods were fire and drowning before your "weapons" anyway for heretics.
Are you serious? Yes dude, you can hand kill some people with drownings and chokings. That's not how you wage entire wars though. Whether its chemical warfare, biological warfare, or technological warfare, science has dramatically increased our capacity for war. I don't blame science anymore than I blame religion. I blame people using both. But science plays a part.
As IWMTB says, the knowledge and wherewithal to build the atomic bomb didn't come from Buddha. It was a purely scientific endeavor.
I can't reasonably keep going with this since you're missing my main point that science does not provide an ethical/moral/philosophical framework it merely informs one.
Religion already is a framework in which people decide to act within (or don't sometimes, hell most of the time).
Religion already is a framework in which people decide to act within (or don't sometimes, hell most of the time).
By db Go To PostI can't reasonably keep going with this since you're missing my main point that science does not provide an ethical/moral/philosophical framework it merely informs one.
Religion already is a framework in which people decide to act within (or don't sometimes, hell most of the time).
Why does it have to be a framework? Religion is sometimes the WHY. Science is always the HOW. The means of war don't need a moral framework, they're not providing judgements or reasons.
You're missing the main point too out of some weird blind allegiance to the sanctity of science. It is unquestionable that scientific principles and advancements have led to the weaponry used to wage war. To blame Religion for wars and not science is to be an idealogue akin to the staunchest 2nd ammendment defender.
Blind allegiance to the sanctity of science? Nope. Not at all. I abhor what people have done in the name of it or with it but that is again an issue of personal/global/political ethics not science itself. I haven't a clue why you're conflating a means by learning/testing theories/knowledge with the people who would then go on to use it for their agendas. You could argue the same is done with religion but you'd be ignoring that religion already has some built in ethical divides whereas science does not.
science isnt functioning in the same role as religion. It's not measured by the same standard. Religion itself doesn't give you the capacity to kill 2 million people instantly. Science itself doesn't give you a reason to kill 2 million people instantly. You need a means and a reason. Religion is often times the reason, although there are other reasons. But science is always the means with which we have the capacity now.
You're taking this as a knock on science in of itself. I think it's because you want to knock religion in of itself. Kind of like arguing When terrorists build a bomb and kill people it's the fault of Islam, but not the fault of chemistry. That's a dubious position to hold. It's sort of like saying - guns dont kill people, people do.
You're taking this as a knock on science in of itself. I think it's because you want to knock religion in of itself. Kind of like arguing When terrorists build a bomb and kill people it's the fault of Islam, but not the fault of chemistry. That's a dubious position to hold. It's sort of like saying - guns dont kill people, people do.
By Gabyskra Go To PostSorry, but you're using the wrong definition considering the context. Yeah, faith can be used like trust since it has been used more liberally in recent history, but here might as well be clear. Trust towards scientists is not the same thing as faith in spirituality (which obeys no proof).I wouldn't consider the Latin roots of the word 'faith' to be "recent history," but we all have our different timescales, I suppose.
Be that as it may, what I was originally alluding to goes much deeper than trusting a supposed expert at their word. The exemplary entities I listed were chosen for a particular reason: not only has no one in this conversation ever directly encountered them (myself included, of course), but no human being ever has. They're traces on instruments, constructs in models, explanations for enigmas, not immediately sensuous objects (and this doesn't even begin to delve into all the epistemological issues pervading 'senses' and 'objects').
There aren't only two parties involved here, the public and the scientists, one with derived and one with direct knowledge. The faith I'm referencing goes far beyond interpersonal trust.
By Gabyskra Go To PostInternet debater yourself.What, are we in a fucking schoolyard? Well, guess what: my dad can beat up your dad.
By KingGondo Go To PostI told you we'd get into semantics quickly, lol.
Could you elaborate on this?
Basically there are unwritten rules like baseball that people will not hand you a dictionary for.
Status is really important so people will filter you based on background, possibly race, family history, current occupation etc. as people are trying to find life partners. This applies to friends as well. Another thing: the world is not an enemy but we need to be above worldly pursuits. I won't get into the rest of the culture but suffice it to say it's really unique and people will argue you to death with made up stats about experiences they see from afar.
I find myself inline with Vahagn on this topic.. My personal views would be closer to Deism, but not exactly.
Blind to science to me is just a out there as only praying for a aliment to heal rather than seeking medical attention.
Not meaning to offend anyone who actually follows either practice, just my beliefs...
Blind to science to me is just a out there as only praying for a aliment to heal rather than seeking medical attention.
Not meaning to offend anyone who actually follows either practice, just my beliefs...
By flabber Go To PostI wouldn't consider the Latin roots of the word 'faith' to be "recent history," but we all have our different timescales, I suppose.
Be that as it may, what I was originally alluding to goes much deeper than trusting a supposed expert at their word. The exemplary entities I listed were chosen for a particular reason: not only has no one in this conversation ever directly encountered them (myself included, of course), but no human being ever has. They're traces on instruments, constructs in models, explanations for enigmas, not immediately sensuous objects (and this doesn't even begin to delve into all the epistemological issues pervading 'senses' and 'objects').
There aren't only two parties involved here, the public and the scientists, one with derived and one with direct knowledge. The faith I'm referencing goes far beyond interpersonal trust.
What, are we in a fucking schoolyard? Well, guess what: my dad can beat up your dad.
No one has ever seen, nor will they ever see a black hole, but we know they're there. IMO boiling down the work involved in discovering your exemplary entities to "traces on an instrument", doesn't do them justice.
Had you brought up string theory, which isn't even testable, then I would be more inclined to agree that science can also be faith based.
By Yurt Go To Postif you watch Italian soccer you know for a fact that God doesnt existI laughed.
and if he does, he's in Berlusconi's pocket
comic relief. carry on
Thank you.
By Vahagn Go To PostThis is blind denial at this point. No one's suggesting that the moral judgments made by science are the cause of war. The weapons made by science are the MEANS of war.This is an important point. Someone here said that WWI was fought over stupidity but you could look at it as the truest industrial expression of warfare. The world had no idea how to wrangle its own technology. Combine that with a bunch of generals who saw people as only a means of use, and you get the most horrific war that's ever occurred.
Now that just means that humans have to trust each other to handle scientific discoveries appropriately which is almost certainly more likely with a scientifically literate population. Spirituality doesn't have to die for this to happen but cancers like the modern jihad will.
World War I was the product of imperialist aspirations. Empires clashing for decades, until the conflict made it to their own soil. WWI is not about science, it's about the history of the development of capitalism.
Also, to argue that guns are "science" but that spears are not, just fascinates me. That's one word that is just never understood.
Also, to argue that guns are "science" but that spears are not, just fascinates me. That's one word that is just never understood.
By J-Twelve Go To PostThe pope is passing through town today. Y'all want me to ask him anything?As long as you get him to say "SLAENT.com" in his reply I don't care what you ask.
By KingGondo Go To PostAs long as you get him to say "SLAENT.com" in his reply I don't care what you ask.
Did anyone ever say it out loud yet? I'm sure we disagree on the pronunciation.
We need t-shirts too. With reilo's face on it.
I don't think that it's fair to say that WWI Germany was imperial. They launched a defensive war in fear of their geographical position between France/Russia, and a complex network of treaties expanded the conflict to many fronts. The technology that was available made it absolutely brutal. It was an old school war fought with modern machinery which nobody knew the consequences of using on a massive scale.
Science didn't CAUSE WWI it just blindsided the entire world with its unrestrained power.
WW2 Germany was definitely an aggressive, imperial nation.
Science didn't CAUSE WWI it just blindsided the entire world with its unrestrained power.
WW2 Germany was definitely an aggressive, imperial nation.
By butt Go To PostI don't think that it's fair to say that WWI Germany was imperial. They launched a defensive war in fear of their geographical position between France/Russia, and a complex network of treaties expanded the conflict to many fronts.
Defensive or offensive is semantics. You're actually saying "geographical position". Guess what empires fight about? Geography. All sides wanted to extend into new territories, for material benefit. The Franco-German rivalry was about the border, Alsace and Lorraine (where I was born, btw), and future prospects worldwide. You do realize what "Reich" stands for, of course. And you do know Germany had its share of Africa.
France and Russia were imperialists as well.
It's funny how we've turned the religious thread back into geopolitics! They're so entwined. It's not a poor argument to suggest that all nations tend to seek to expand their influence and in that sense are imperial. I'm not a native German so I can't say what reich actually meant to WW1 German leadership but you're right to suggest that nations never have strictly pure intentions.
I think we are both bringing up some good ideas. We should probably divert back to religious questions though as to not derail the discussion.
I think we are both bringing up some good ideas. We should probably divert back to religious questions though as to not derail the discussion.
Reich meant exactly the same to the Germans what Empire meant to the British and the Romans. Neither are on the right side of history with their geopolitics.
By butt Go To PostIt's funny how we've turned the religious thread back into geopolitics! They're so entwined.
The Pope gave a speech today in the US so that all of the different types Jesus lovers can debate over whether or not taking care of the poor is in fact political and not at all Christian.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe Pope gave a speech today in the US so that all of the different types Jesus lovers can debate over whether or not taking care of the poor is in fact political and not at all Christian.Sorry, this is America. It bestows wealth on the hard-working and punishes the lazy.
By db Go To PostScience never does this. Science is just straight up knowledge and observations.
Shiiid, if only.
By KingGondo Go To PostSorry, this is America. It bestows wealth on the hard-working and punishes the lazy.
Spoken like a true American Catholic
https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/646701922146123779
By Fenderputty Go To PostSpoken like a true American Catholic
https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/646701922146123779
Sarcasm
By Vahagn Go To PostSarcasmI assume he knew. I'm not exactly known as Mr. Religious Conservative.
By KingGondo Go To PostI assume he knew. I'm not exactly known as Mr. Religious Conservative.
Exactly what a religious conservative would want us to think.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/middleeast/stampede-hajj-pilgrimage/index.html
They've got to figure this shit out. The Hajj in of itself is crucial as one of the five pillars of Islam, and really has a beautiful message behind it. But this throwing stones at the devil part and the ridiculous bottleneck trying to serve hundreds of thousands or millions of people needs to stop.
They've got to figure this shit out. The Hajj in of itself is crucial as one of the five pillars of Islam, and really has a beautiful message behind it. But this throwing stones at the devil part and the ridiculous bottleneck trying to serve hundreds of thousands or millions of people needs to stop.
By Vahagn Go To PostSarcasm
I know. My post was filled with it as well.
By KingGondo Go To PostI assume he knew. I'm not exactly known as Mr. Religious Conservative.
Is everyone's sarcasm meter broken or is it just mine and even this post is sarcastic. I wish there was some sort of higher being to consult.
By reilo Go To PostLike a slightly mispronounced verson of the word slant.I say it as a cross between slant and taint.
Fitting really.
By K@do Go To Postno one knows. its a mystery.
The pronunciation or God?
By reilo Go To PostI didn't ask whether people believe, I asked about cataloging actual interactions with deities or instances of miracles.
Doctrines from thousands of years ago are littered with them, but somehow they ceased to exist as we invented the means to quantify it all and the population grew in magnitude. Why did miracles only happen during biblical times?
Well, talk to a few evangelicals and they'll claim resurrections are still happening in places like Africa. Talk to some others and you'll learn that folks are being cured of HIV, they're having their deformed leg fixed miraculously, and folks who are comatose are waking up. Why these miracles only happen around those who already have faith? That's the interesting question, isn't it.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe pronunciation or God?good question.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe pronunciation or God?
We actually do know the pronunciation. It simply isn't suppose to be uttered. Tip, it's not Jehovah.
By lovingsteam Go To PostWe actually do know the pronunciation. It simply isn't suppose to be uttered. Tip, it's not Jehovah.Voldemort!
YHVH whateverz, I WROTE IT, SEND ME TO HELL.
I call him "Alan L" anyway.
By lovingsteam Go To PostWe actually do know the pronunciation. It simply isn't suppose to be uttered. Tip, it's not Jehovah.grace us with your knowledge, how is it pronounced?
i've heard it pronounced several ways
Yahway
Yahoway
yahwah
yahowah
i think the best explanation i've heard was exhaling "yah"
then inhaling while pronouncing "ho"
and then exhaling while pronouncing "wah"
By K@do Go To Postgrace us with your knowledge, how is it pronounced?
i've heard it pronounced several ways
Yahway
Yahoway
yahwah
yahowah
i think the best explanation i've heard was exhaling "yah"
then inhaling while pronouncing "ho"
and then exhaling while pronouncing "way"
yahvay (try to not say the last Y) according to the Catholic church, but since the previous pope, some encyclical recommended to just say "the lord", out of respect for Jewish people
By Gabyskra Go To PostVoldemort!
YHVH whateverz, I WROTE IT, SEND ME TO HELL.
I call him "Alan L" anyway.
LOL.
Considering that ancient Hebrews didn't have vowels and simply fused vowels from Adonai into YHWH, the pronunciation was most likely 'YaHVeH'/ 'YaHWeH'. Jews to this day will not say it but rather 'Ha Shem' or 'Adonai' due to the idea that nothing pure comes out of a persons lips so as to not speak the name with impurity.
By lovingsteam Go To Postnothing pure comes out of a persons lips
They obviously knew my exes, heyhoooo
By Gabyskra Go To PostThey obviously knew my exes, heyhoooo
Mine too =P
By Gabyskra Go To Postyahvay (try to not say the last Y) according to the Catholic church, but since the previous pope, some encyclical recommended to just say "the lord", out of respect for Jewish peopleyeah, i noticed Americans pronounce the last part like "way"
while the others pronounce it like "wah"
And im quite sure the "vah" didn't exist in ancient hebrew writings.
its pronounced "wah"
Steam, please respond.
By Gabyskra Go To PostThey obviously knew my exes, heyhoooolol well then
There was no such thing as a "w" like sound in roman times, i doubt hebrew has it either, the way the tetragram was written was different too.
yahvé is how i would write it, but the accent makes no sense in english
yahvé is how i would write it, but the accent makes no sense in english
By lovingsteam Go To PostCorrect, there is no W in ancient Hebrew. The closest it would have been is V or vah.you sure about that?
i've read arguments for both.
from my understanding "vah" sound comes from septuagint transliteration,
while ancient hebrew of phoenetically sounds like the letters, U, V, or W.
also, doesn't the pronunciation factor in on where the hebrew character is placed?
lastly, Ancient Aramaic and Arabic do not have a "vav" sounding character, but they both have "waw" sounding characters,
which leads me to believe ancient Hebrew did not have a "vav" sound.
By K@do Go To Postyou sure about that?
i've read arguments for both.
from my understanding "vah" sound comes from septuagint transliteration,
while ancient hebrew of phoenetically sounds like the letters, U, V, or W.
also, doesn't the pronunciation factor in on where the hebrew character is placed?
lastly, Ancient Aramaic and Arabic do not have a "vav" sounding character, but they both have "waw" sounding characters,
which leads me to believe ancient Hebrew did not have a "vav" sound.
Well, the issue is when we use the letter W are we thinking of the modern pronunciation of the letter? Same with V. Are we thinking of the modern V as in Victor? There was no W as we prounounce it today nor was it prounced as Very. More likely as ooh as in Upsilon. So if we want to prounce it as best as possible it's most likely YHWH as in Y - a -H(ah) - V(ooh) -e -H(ah). Hope that makes sense.