Jump to content

EKen132

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.036

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by EKen132

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well in that case that wouldn't be a false dichotomy, because anything other than "God" falls under "not God".

    But I see how the other ones are false dichotomies, except for the last one. Is there a neutral :)? or do you just personally disagree with the terminology?

    Troyan War

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    For those of you who have read the Wiki article, take a guess in the Fun and Games Forum as to the question I asked on the WFG Gameshow thread.

    I just finished reading the Aeneid, and the postscript talks about a Troy "a few miles inland south of hte Hellespont, looking west toward Tenedos and the Aegean". Maybe it has been found?

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Geez I think the history is the weakest reason. If I were you, I'd be much more turned off to the faith by all the preceding things you had mentioned.

    It's not like there was some world trend in how they worshipped gods. As a general rule, there have been pantheistic religions for as long as there have been people. The only real popular monotheistic religions have been Judaism, Christianity, and most recently, although by no means new, Islam. But throughout this entire time, pantheistic religions have existed, with gods for every aspect of life. I am not recognizing any chronological trend from painted animals to nature gods to gods of cities to kings that were descendents of gods. All pantheistic religions have at least some gods based on nature, and many with cities have deities for their cities. Also, almost every pantheistic religion has claimed rulers descended from God at one time or another, but I'm not sure what trend you see or why it's disturbing at that.

    And also, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Amon thing. Are you saying the doctrine resembles the trinity? Or that the teachings about Amon gradually changed to resemble the trinity? I'm not sure when Echnaton was, but the idea of the trinity was developed officially around the Nicaean council time, but mentioned often before the council.

    It's also remarkable that in areas distant from eachother different religions, pantheons and gods developed. Strange, because why would that god only show his face on a single place to a single people, and not to all those other people?

    Again I misunderstand you. Doesn't the first make the second unremarkable? And wouldn't different regions develop slightly different characteristics? I mean you'd expect them to be similar to a great degree, but by no means the same religion. So why is this remarkable?

    And also, I can speak for Catholic missionaries when I say that God is revealing Himself to "all those people". Thoughout it's history, the Catholic church has been known for sending out missionaries, even though it was often a process done entirely in the wrong way. But even know, missionaries are in China, where the church is still an underground effort... we shall see as the Olympics come up what happens, and in Africa, and many other of those reaches of the globe.

    I've also seen too many abuses and discrimination by religions to follow one. My brother's homosexuality that can't be accepted by some people and the disrespect they show him because of it, not being allowed to go to the local school because I'm not baptized, my grandmother who demanded euthanasia because she had much pain but didn't get it, the parents of my best friend giving me less respect than his other friends because I'm an atheist, my dad's encounters with two pedophile priests and my grandmother who has been physically abused by nuns in school.

    Except for the case of your grandmother, whose situation I don't know clearly enough to make a judgement, you do know, Klaas, that the actions of these people are contrary to what the church teaches/Jesus taught about how to treat people.

    Jesus was absolutely hated in his time because he would eat dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors (who were rightly notorious for their early versions of corporate theft- they were hated by the people). For those who would disrepect your brother because of his homosexuality or look down on him with contempt do not do as Jesus would have done. The same for your friend's parents.

    The school thing, I'd say if it's a state school, well then I can see why you are violently opposed to any semblance of religion in the state. If it's a Catholic school, then I'm not sure why you're complaining, but I'm assuming it's a state school, and that would make sense, and put the wrongdoing on their side.

    As for pedophile priests, they are the worst abuse of all. But what can we say about them.... obviously they do not follow the teachings of Jesus nor the Church, and to destroy people's lives in the process.

    And your grandmother again... well IDK about how you qualify physical abuse. I hear plenty of horror stories about nuns rapping the knuckles of my mom and her generation when they were little schoolchildren, but they lived just fine to tell about it. Anyhow you'd have to clarify.

    I think your real problem with religion is that you're turned off by it because you see those who should exemplify it instead gravely failing to live by it's commands.

    Hiroshima

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Surpised Cory would argue that way, but I don't disagree. Good post :king:. Seems like those real researched posts always get the reps up they deserve.

    But I sure don't like that last guy's quote about being war criminals for not using it.

    Is it possible to create 'new' water?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    No, I believe my response was complete.

    If plants get water from the soil, it's because the water got rained there, which means it came from a cloud from evaporation of the ocean etc. The water cycle. The fact that plants get water from the soil does not in any way disprove anything I said. The water from the soil is used by the plants for photosynthesis, during which it becomes ATP and other stuff. Then during cellular respiration, another process in the plant, other molecules react and one of the by products is water, which then leaves the plant.

    And no, the water from anabolism is not water previously stored by us. Water is a by-product of anabolism, which is the process of forming complex molecules like proteins from smaller ones.

    Water is in a constant cycle, and none of it is lost

    I said that when I said "we gain or lose practically no water on this earth whatsoever".

    And we make the acids from water, so there one can't create new water as well

    Well we make acid solutions using acids and waters, but I don't know of acids making water (acid-base reactions are an acid and a base forming water and a salt though) and even if there are, what you just said was acids being the product of something with water, so no, that's not creating water either.

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    I'd say the facts that the universe contains matter, matter cannot be created or destroyed (only transfered into energy & transfered back), and that the universe is not infinite in time because infinity is a mathmatical idea, not a measurement proves that something greater than the universe had to start the beginning of the universe and create all the matter in it, i.e. a big bang sort of thing would accomplish this task, and seems reasonable because everything really far away is red, if you know what I mean.

    Anyhow, I'm not quite sure of that statement yet, I'm looking for thoughts on it.

    Is it possible to create 'new' water?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well... it's created all the time, thousands and thousands of tons of it every day. Just the fact that the the earth and it's inhabitants use thousands and thousands of tons of it every day offsets that fact.

    For instance, water is a byproduct of cellular respiration. So why not just have plants make more water by respiration? Because water is a requisite (forgot the real term for this) material for photosynthesis, and that needs to happen if respiration is to continue.

    The same for our bodies. Water is created by anabolism (molecules joining together in the body) but used by catabolism (digestion). Or the water cycle, but I'm sure you heard about that. Or acid-base reactions which form water and salt, and both of those things will eventually end up in other reactions turning back into acids and bases!

    So yeah, it's perfectly possible, even impossible not to create water. But the same goes for using it. So overall, we gain or lose practically no water on this earth whatsoever.

    As for running out of water... since we can't ever have any more water than we've already had, the only option left when/if we ever run out is to recycle it faster. I'm not too up-to-date on the water situation, but when it gets bad, the efforts should go into faster purification and sewage and distribution and even usage because if you have 100 people who need to live on 100 liters of water, you're gonna have a heck of a time if you don't have purifiers that work real fast, and you're not gonna wanna have water sitting in tanks not being used. Well I'm really overstepping the bounds of this topic (or not Nate?).

    The thing the article should have said is "New water, but only as much new water as their was old water".

  25. What books are you reading these days?

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted

    I was serious actually... he was from like the mid to late nineteenth century right? The "American dream" guy?

    Anyhow, I'm now on the Aenied, Fitzgerald translation. I'm not half way done yet, but I'm really liking it. And since I've never heard it before, it's cool to read sort of an epic poem that you never knew existed.

    Basically the Aenied is the story of how the people of Troy, after the Trojan war, escape their land and sail around for a long time facing tribulations until they eventually settle Italy, and their descendants go on to form the Roman Empire. It was written by Virgil, a Roman, and there's a good chance he made a good part of it up, as the purpose of the piece was Roman nationalism. Anyhow, it's a great story so far.

×
×
  • Create New...