X-Ftn-To: BrannasMan

"BrannasMan" wrote:
>"Domagoj Klepac" wrote
>
>> Ma ti si obicna nepismena uobrazena budala koja nema pojma o Internetu. Do
>> tvojih stavova o Bogu jos nitko nije ni dosao niti ih kritizirao.
>
>mozda si pismeniji od mene.mozda znas vishe o internetu.
>mozda sam uobrazhen.sve je to nista prema tvojoj genijalnosti.
>ej pa da nisi li ti bog?jesi, jesi!ti vladash svemirom!
>oprostimi grijehe o uzvisheni,kajem se...

Nije Bog, nego je moderator konferencije hr.fido.religija, sto ti
ovdje manje-vise dodje na isto. Dakle ili pisi tematske i
netiquette-friendly poruke, ili se mici odavdje.

[crosspost trimmed]

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Vicko Vitasovic

"Vicko Vitasovic" wrote:
>> Ti si fakat materijalist od glave do pete a brijes na vjeru.
>> Onog trenutka kad ti to sto trazis od mene prineses u vezi Isusa dobit
>ces.
>
>Ne, tako se ne razgovara. Ako si isao braniti neku tezu onda ne mozes u pola
>izaci iz obrane tako da meni postavljas protupitanje. Odgovorit cu ti u vezi
>Isusa sve - ali dovrsimo do kraja obranu tvoje teze.

Kak nije, covjek je rekao da se onaj tko zivi u stakleniku ne bi
trebao nabacivati kamenjem, i to je cisto OK. Naime, kad Ti budes u
stanju dati znanstveni dokaz da postoji Bog i da mu je Isus sin, onda
mozes traziti od Drazena da Ti da znanstveni dokaz o postojanju
reinkarnacije. Inace fiju.
Dotle, netko ce vjerovati u ono sto mu ima vise smisla, a na temelju
svog iskustva i svojstava licnosti, a to uopce ne mora biti prenosivo
znanje.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Coyote

"Coyote" wrote:
>"but I'd say that you're more likely to find the 1/M or 1/G
> folks in the Nobel prize group, not in Mensa. The IQ that big is
> something that has to show in real life, so, why not just look for the
> guys who displayed results?"
>
>Don't forget to look in mental hospitals - you might be surprised...

You mean, the rain men? :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> X-Ftn-To: George Hammond
>>
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> >But, there is no "definition" of Water, Aluminum, Dynamite, or GOD,
>>
>> Water is a substance created from molecules that consist of two atoms
>> of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, chemical formula H2O.
>
>[Hammond]
>That's not a DEFINITION, that's a DESCRIPTION

:))))))))))))
"Definition" is an accurate description of a term, which serves to
distinguish it from other terms.
This was a definition of a definition, for instance. Definitions are a
necessary prerequisite of clear thinking and reasoning; sophists have,
for instance, played many verbal games that are possible only because
the terms in question weren't defined, for instance the "loss of one
hair makes a man bald" thing. The correct definitions make those games
impossible. For instance, in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary there
are several possible definitions offered for every word, for instance:

GOD n [ME, fr. OE; akin to OHG got god] (bef. 12c)
1 cap: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in
power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of
the universe b Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle
ruling over all as eternal Spirit: infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes
and powers and to require human worship; specif: one controlling a
particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

In the same dictionary, a definition is defined (2a) as "a statement
expressing the essential nature of something".

For more information see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#definitions

Go educate yourself, I'm in no mood to explain highschool logic and
philosophy to someone who claims to have a MS degree. Any scientist
should have taken those things in with mother's milk.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>"real experts"... don't make me laugh.... Ahhh ahahahh ahhahahahaha
>hah hah hah aahhhh aahahahaha. What ME, sit there and listen to
>a lot of Line Professional twaddle by synchophantic half asses
>on a biweekly salary... get the fuck outta here. Did you
>see jesus going to the universities and giving lectures to the
>Pharisees.... don't be crazy.

Well, actually he did that. He went to the synagogues and to the
Temple in Jerusalem, he preached and healed the sick and what not. He
argued with them and won. When they could do nothing else, they killed
him.
You, however, are not Jesus. He could prove the existence of God by
raising dead and making the blind see. You can only try to convince
the scientists.

However, you in fact ridicule the concept of science with your madness
and ignorance, and I would suggest that you look for psychiatric help,
because, as we here disassembled your "SPOG" to such a degree, that it
will remain known as the initials for "Stupid Piece Of Garbage", you
responded by ego-inflation and "none of you knows anything, actually
nobody in the world but me knows anything, bow to me, you worms"
thing. This certainly isn't rational behavior, especially when you
carry the burden of evidence, any everything you could come up with
could be disproved with nothing more than ancient Greek logic, like,
if it has a cause then it isn't the supreme reality.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
> It is OBVIOUS that the "computer vs. program" argument
>answers quite satisfactorily the mystery of how an "uncaused cause"
>can suddenly appear in the program. Simply put, the
>"reality" program can account for everything EXCEPT an upgrade of
>the computer. As far as the program is concerned, this appears as
>an "unexplained miracle", and "unexplained change in reality" without
>any apparent cause.

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

OK, I'll remain serious. Counting to ten. OK, let's go.

What is the cause of the human brain? What is the cause of a human
being? What is the cause of the world? What is the cause of the solar
system? What is the cause of the Milky Way galaxy? What is the cause
of the Universe? What is the cause of the BB singularity?

Those are the questions. I understand that your intelligence isn't
much, and I'm trying to explain this slowly, as I would to a mentally
retarded child.

You weren't always this old. You were once younger. You were conceived
at one point by your parents. They were conceived at one point by
their parents. This is a small fragment of the chain of causation.
Your grandparents caused your parents, your parents caused you; A
caused C caused D.
So, if something wasn't always here and in the present form, people
say that it was created, and that it has a point of origin, or a
cause. The only thing, that by a definition _doesn't_ have a cause, is
God. So, if you want to prove the existence of God, you must find
something that always was, always will be, and somehow created the
rest.

So, if we take "your" analogy, what caused the program? What caused
the computer? God can be only on the "left" part of the chain, not
right. You are saying that hardware (brain) causes the software
("reality") and software causes "God".
Then, you fail to understand what an uncaused cause is, and you say
that an uncaused cause "suddenly appears in the program".
The most ridiculous thing is, you then keep explaining the cause of
the uncaused cause. :)))

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))
You ...
If it appears, it is caused. Like your diploma. You did something, by
either paying for it or by taking exams, I'm not sure, and it
appeared. Something caused the degree, but an idiot remained an idiot,
only with a MS label.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>But, there is no "definition" of Water, Aluminum, Dynamite, or GOD,

Water is a substance created from molecules that consist of two atoms
of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, chemical formula H2O.

Aluminium is a metal, element Al, produced in pure form by
electrolysis of Al2O3.

Dynamite is a mixture of nitroglycerine and infuzoric clay, invented
by Alfred Nobel, with purpose of increasing the stability of
nitroglycerine.

God is the foundation of reality, the supreme omnipresent being and
the uncaused cause of all.

Your turn.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Gromit

Gromit wrote:
>> A causal chain is a chain of A caused B caused C caused D...
>> So, when we talk about things, we can ask, is this thing here forever,
>> or does it have a cause somewhere outside itself? Apparently, all
>> physical objects originate from the Big Bang, so, this expanding
>> singularity is the source of all things. Now, you ask yourself, is the
>> Big Bang origin of the causal chain, or are there any links to the
>> left?
>
>Your description of what my question was is excellent. Thank you for
>putting in simple words the concept I was trying to get across to george.

I don't believe that he'll comply, because once he does, his bubble is
gonna burst.

>George has attempted to address this but in my opinion he has failed to show
>that his god is the Christian God. Causeless, timeless, omnipresent are all
>Christian concepts that do not seem to combine with George's god.

Agreed. He defines "God" as a psycho-physiological phenomenon, which
is closer to Freudian or Marxist, than to Christian views of the
matter. Freud said that the idea of God was caused by repressed
sexuality, and Marx said that it was a product of class exploitation.
Hammond really does fit this company nicely. :)

>That's what I have been asking for. Hammond claimed that he does not define god,
>he proves god. But in order to prove something you have to define it otherwise the
>proof is meaningless.

Exactly. Before _every_ attempt of expressing scientific evidence, one
must first elaborate _what_ he's proving, _how_ he's going to do it,
and _why_ the evidence is conclusive and relevant. The actual evidence
must be placed into a wider context that makes it understandable.
Here, he would first need to define God, and prove that his definition
is theologically acceptable. Then, he would need to explain the
connection between physics, biology and God. After that, he would
bring out the actual data and interpret it. Then, he would have to
explain why his interpretation is the most probable one (by Occam's
razor or something similar), and why the conclusion about God's
existence necessarily follows from it all. Then, he should express
caution regarding the logic and data involved in the process, and
invite the experts to question his theory, and calmly answer all their
questions. If they find something he can't explain convincingly, he
should thank them for finding an error in his theory and reconsider
his conclusions.

Frankly, I'm afraid of the possibility that this guy's diploma is
genuine. This would mean that it's possible for someone to have a
specialized knowledge of one specialized application of science, and
to be utterly clueless regarding the scientific methodology, which is,
frankly, a disaster.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> If the growth deficit is the cause of God how does this reconcile with
>> the Christian idea of an uncaused God?
>
>Using the computer analogy that's EASY to answer. The "program"
>called "reality" knows NOTHING about the existence of the computer,
>therefore, when someone upgrades the computer with a faster processor
>and more memory, it appears that "reality" has changed from an
>"uncaused cause". Surely you can comprehend that. The Jensens
>certainly can.

Gee, you don't even understand the question.

A causal chain is a chain of A caused B caused C caused D...
So, when we talk about things, we can ask, is this thing here forever,
or does it have a cause somewhere outside itself? Apparently, all
physical objects originate from the Big Bang, so, this expanding
singularity is the source of all things. Now, you ask yourself, is the
Big Bang origin of the causal chain, or are there any links to the
left? A Christian would say that this singularity is merely one link
among many, and that the first link, the one without a cause, that
caused all other things, is God. So, every single thing that has a
cause is NOT GOD, at least not a sort of God that anyone smart would
believe in. I can define God as the tree in my back yard (which I did
for fun, couple of posts ago), but then we can say that God isn't the
object of serious theological study, but an object of horticulture.
The only reason why people are interested in God, is because "God" is
the world that is used for the highest reality and the cause of all
things.
This is what I asked you several times, and what this good man asks
you now: does your "God" meet the Christian definition of God,
meaning, that it is omnipresent, transcendental, causeless and the
Creator of All? Is the entire reality without exception subject to His
will?
Is this the God that feeds the birds and dresses the lilies, the one
who knows the count of all the hair on your body? The one who created
the origin of this Universe and brought it to existence? The one who
objectively exists outside of human mind and imagination? The one who
gave life to all beings, the one Jesus called "Father", the Logos that
was in the beginning?
This was the question. Provide your definition of God. Now.
The moment you do that, you can start apologizing to people here.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: XRazor

"XRazor" wrote:
>Hitno bih trebao par linkova o sektama, dakle sto su, zasto, koje su sve,
>djelovanja i tako dalje, i to na hrvatskom jeziku...
>Hvala.

Nema previse kvalitetnih materijala na tu temu, barem ne kod nas;
Isusovci su napravili nekakav pamflet "Novi religijski pokreti", koji
sam procitao i koji nista ne valja. Sto se tice popisa sekti, to je
isto pizdarija, buduci da svaka religija jedva ceka da moze sve ostale
definirati kao neprijatelje i na neki ih nacin popljuvati. Osim toga,
termin "sekta" je nejasno definiran, vecina pod tim pojmom
podrazumijeva manjinsku religijsku organizaciju koja prakticira
nekakve cudne obrede, a temelj takvoj ideji je ksenofobija i paranoja
prosjecnog gradjanstva. Bolja definicija sekte bi glasila da se tu
radi o organizaciji koja smanjuje dodir svojih clanova sa stvarnoscu i
navodi ih da prihvate njen filter za tumacenje stvarnosti; sve dok
netko prihvaca takav filter, clan je grupe, a kad pocne davati
alternativna tumacenja stvarnosti, nespojiva s idejama sekte, tada
biva odbacen od grupe.
Problem je u tome sto je po toj definiciji vecina nasih
civilizacijskih struktura sektaska.
Drugi problem nastaje kad se sektama pokusavaju prigovoriti nekakve
standardne stvari, tipa kodeksa oblacenja, prehrane, meditacije i
slicnog. Nista od svega toga nije po sebi problematicno, problem
nastaje kad se takve stvari koriste s pogresnom namjerom i sluze
dovodjenju u stanje podloznosti i zablude. Primjerice, katolicki
redovi poput franjevaca imaju svoj kodeks oblacenja i ponasanja, pa ce
ih opet tesko netko proglasiti za sektu, iako su po tom pitanju jako
nalik primjerice Hare Krishnama. Ali, franjevci su uobicajeni a Hare
Krishne nisu. Isto tako, vojne jedinice imaju mentalitet uzasno slican
sektama; cak i pojedini razredi u skolama imaju mentalitet mi-oni.

Dodatni je problem da se nase civilizacijske strukture ponasaju poput
sekte, pa u slucaju da clan sekte pokusa prijeci u alternativnu sektu,
svi se uzbune i poremeti im se osjecaj sigurnosti, jer takav covjek
naglo vise nije poput njih, on je sada drugaciji, pa se postavlja
pitanje "Bogom dane" savrsenosti njihovog sustava. Zbog toga je
smisljena citava ta prica sa sektama, i zato primjerice roditelji
toliko luduju kad im se dijete nadje u necemu sto oni ocijene kao
sektu - sektu je nuzno oznaciti kao negativnu, treba ju demonizirati,
pripisati joj svakakve negativnosti, a kako bi se opravdali nasilni
postupci ogranicavanja volje pojedinca kojemu se pokusava "pomoci". To
je stara i poznata stvar; iste stvari koje se danas pripisuju
"sektama", u srednjem su se vijeku pripisivale "hereticima", samo se
terminologija malo promijenila. Zapravo, termin "heretik" je bolji od
termina "sekta", buduci da oznacava krivovjernika, otpadnika od
pravovjerja, a svatko voli misliti o sebi kako je upravo on
pravovjeran. Zbog sklonosti demoniziranju heretika, njima se pripisuju
negativne stvari koje cak mogu samoj "ortodoksnoj" zajednici biti u
vecoj mjeri svojstvene; primjerice, sektama se pripisuje skandalozno
seksualno ponasanje, pa ce katolicka crkva krenuti u krizarski rat
protiv sekti, a istodobno se pojavi novinski naslov o tome kako se
svecenici jebu s casnim sestrama i kako su nekog svecenika metnuli u
zatvor zbog pedofilije. Katolicka crkva ce sebe braniti tvrdnjom da se
tu radi o sporadicnoj pojavi, ali takvo objasnjenje nece biti sklona
prihvatiti u slucaju sekte, tamo ce se to vidjeti kao nesto primarno.

Umjesto nekakvih proizvoljnih bedastoca o tome je li nesto sekta ili
nije, ja bih predlozio bolji kriterij: valja li nesto, ili ne. Ako
valja, onda je pametno biti u tome, a ako ne valja, onda se toga treba
kloniti. Zato ja definiram sektu kao religijsku organizaciju koja ne
valja nista, koja naucava gluposti i cije je djelovanje stetno po
njihove clanove, u smislu da od njih radi jos vece budale nego su bili
na pocetku. Ako nesto ljudima pomaze, onda to treba podrzati, a ako im
odmaze, protiv toga se treba boriti.

Recimo, Hare Krishnama ljudi prigovaraju svakakve gluposti koje ili ne
stoje, ili su irelevantne; rijetko ce se sjetiti pravog prigovora, da
se tu radi o sekti koju je osnovao bedak koji je potpuno pogresno
preveo i tumacio temeljne spise, da je na osnovu toga napravio bedastu
teologiju koja nema veze sa stvarnoscu, da im religijska praksa ne
daje nikakve pozitivne duhovne rezultate, i da su tamo prominentni
nasilje i licemjerje (lako vidljivo ako se malo pogledaju njihovi
razgovori po netu), a da se Bogom manje-vise nitko ne bavi, osim na
rijecima. Umjesto da se kritika posveti takvim stvarima, ljudi ce se
radije baviti nekakvim sporednostima, tipa njihovog oblacenja. Sto se
mene tice, mogu se oblaciti kako hoce ili hodati goli, bitno je vodi
li njihova religijska praksa spoznaji vrhovne stvarnosti ili ne. Ako
ne vodi, treba ju ukinuti i iskorijeniti, a ako vodi, treba im dati
novce i hvaliti ih u novinama da im se vise ljudi prikljuci. Eto, tako
to meni izgleda.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org