GENIUS FORUMS

Moral arguments against God are less than pathetic. Sorry, don't mean to derail this thread further, just had to add that....

Dan Rowden wrote:A meaningful response will come, Inshallah!

Yep, mm-hm.............

whistling wind, rolling tumbleweeds

~
[Musical Interlude]

Bilby wrote:Laird, I’m proud of my atheism and wear it as a badge of honour.

And I'm ashamed of my agnosticism and wear it as a dunce's cap. To be masculine is to know - uncertainty emasculates me.

Bilby wrote:The reasoning goes like this:

Where did the universe come from?
God created it.
Who created God?
God was always there.

Or how about:
Where did the universe come from?
God created it.
Who created God?
The universe evolved God.

Ridiculously circular? Perhaps, but in my opinion more explicative than:

Bilby wrote:Then why not just say that the universe was always there?

Because it's not an explanation, it's an article of faith. That's why I hold atheism to be dogmatic. It seems to be tied to this particular view that there is no need for explanation, that we simply have to accept that something as complex, wondrous and magical as the universe "just is and always has been".

Furthermore, what about the Big Bang - do you accept this theory? It seems that you do not, for you postulate that the universe "was always there". That's not, as I understand it, what science currently holds to be true. Science (through the Big Bang theory) currently suggests that time itself has an origin, or at least that space-time does.

Bilby wrote:Why exactly, do you need a god to explain anything?

I don't know whether we need a god, but I strongly believe that we need something more than "the universe was always there". I believe that it would be closed-minded of me to assert, given my ignorance, that a god of some definition is absolutely and certainly no part of The Explanation, which is what atheists do.

Bilby wrote:This is the principle of Occams Razor, you reduce the superfluous. Any enquiry into reality means getting rid of the redundant.

As I've made clear, I don't think that your explanation of the universe is sufficient. Given that more is required, then who are either of us to say what's redundant and what's necessary?

Shakespeare wrote:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Bilby wrote:If God doesn’t explain anything, then it is more logical to say the universe was always there, perhaps in a form different to what we know now. This raises some beautiful possibilities for the mind to ponder.

Indeed, it does, and thank you for re-keying me in to that idea. Part of my pleasure in philosophising is considering beautiful possibilities. I'm just loath to funnel my faith into any one of them, as you seem willing to do. But perhaps I am mischaracterising your position - perhaps it is not so much dogma as belief, and perhaps you are more willing to class as "tentative" your beliefs than I have given you credit for.

Bilby wrote:Your view that God designed life as a spiritual battle between good and evil is not only hackneyed, it’s unsympathetic to the human condition.

I think that you've misrepresented my position a little - it's not a view that I hold, it's a possibility that I entertain. Hackneyed - what relationship does that have to whether this possibility might be true? I don't see how it's unsympathetic either - it provides a partial explanation for suffering and a hope of an end to that suffering.

Bilby wrote:A great many people suffer under appalling circumstances and there is never any salvation for them. Not in this life, or any other. It’s just senseless, tragic suffering.

That seems to be an article of your faith: as you declare that the universe "just is", so you declare that suffering "just is". Are you not open to the possibility that there is meaning in suffering?

Bilby wrote:He does not reveal himself when someone in Africa slowly starves to death, or is the victim of a bomb blast.

Yes, and I've already suggested that lack of revelation could be part of the rules of engagement in the battle between opposing metaphysical forces.

Bilby wrote:And this world is the best thing god can come up with?

As a battleground it's pretty spectacular though - wouldn't you agree? I mean, we've been discussing terrorism as a weapon of evil, but then there's paedophilia, rape, murder, torture, to mention but a few. On the good side there's compassion, charity, love, democracy, honesty - again, to mention but a few. Battles are everywhere, from physical wars to wars of ideology, to wars of technology and competing products.

Bilby wrote:Out of all of the eternal possibilities a supreme being could conjure, this is the epitome of divine thought?

Who says that this is the epitome? How can we be sure that there are not other realities?

Bilby wrote:Creating a world of famine, disease, murder, child abuse, where the victims grow up to create more victims? Where is the spiritual battle here?

The spiritual battle is enjoined by kind people who try to help victims - psychologists, aid workers, principled leaders of democracies, etc.

Bilby wrote:You bet being an atheist denies such possibilities, because the above notion is puerile and morally repugnant. I’m no fence-sitter agnostic. I’m an atheist because it’s the most moral position I can take.

I won't argue against your opinion that such possibilities are "puerile", although I disagree with it. I will express confusion as to what's morally repugnant about viewing the world as a battle between good and evil though. This explanation of life would in no way remove our moral obligation to alleviate suffering - if anything, it would strengthen it by providing a higher reason for us to prevail.

Damn, I'm not as good lookin' as Clint, but but I want some coffins lined up...........

Laird, Atheism makes no sense to you at this stage, because you can’t see how complexity can just self-organise itself into the myriad of life we see without a guiding hand, and so there must be design implicit in its structure (god). But this guiding hand raises a lot more questions. How did the complexity of the guiding hand (god) come about?

You won’t accept that something as complex, wondrous and magical as the universe "just is and always has been", but you feel that something as complex, wondrous and magical as a god has always either existed, or evolves from the universe.

This is what I meant before about superfluous thinking. Surely a god that creates such complexity has to be complex and wondrous in itself? Where did this complexity come from?

If the universe “evolved” god as you say, then I would have to wonder, again, why god is necessary on an intellectual level. If the universe evolved god, then the complexity of god came from the universe. So we’re back to square one again. My argument is that from your position, as a Christian, you’re not explaining anything.

Maybe consciousness evolves according to the complexity of the system. This is no less a romantic notion, and to me logically, it makes more sense than a sublime being creating the absolute mess that we call planet Earth, then walking away from it. I don’t view our planet with the optimism that you do. I think it’s very ordinary and I don’t see anything special in people, they’re just highly-evolved bugs. It’s the underlying physics that I find intriguing.

Yes, I believe in the big bang. I said before that the universe was always there, in some form or other. Perhaps the big bang of our observable universe was an emergence from a previous state. The energy of the big bang had to come from somewhere.

No, I don’t think the battleground is pretty spectacular. Your god sounds deranged. Your views don’t provide a partial explanation of suffering at all. Suffering doesn’t suggest to me that the sufferer is really undergoing a passage to enlightenment. They’re just suffering. To diminish the evil of suffering to some kind of godly test reduces not only your god, but your humanity.

Bilby wrote:Yes, Laird. I think that Muslims are more intrinsically violent than any other recognisable group.

Yes, we know you think this, and it's no doubt because you get all your political and historical understanding from the news. Fox, no doubt. Let's take a peek at the 20th century, shall we, the most war-ridden century in human history: did Muslims start the insanity of WW1? What about WW2? Was it Muslims or instigated the genocide of European Jewry? How about Korea? Muslims again, was it? Clearly Muslims were behind the Vietnam war, not to mention Cambodia. Fucking Muslims invaded Tibet, too, the bastards! Was it Muslims who invaded Panama and killed hundreds of innocent civilians? Was it towel-heads fighting in the Falklands, but pretending to be Anglicans and Catholics? Was it Islamic arseholes interfering in the political processes of God knows how many Latin American countries? Was it Muslim Russians that invaded Afghanistan and destoryed a lively and beautiful culture? Must have been Muslims behind the hideous treatment of blacks under South African Apartheid, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.....

Damn, those people really are evil!!

Bilby wrote:Laird, Atheism makes no sense to you at this stage, because you can’t see how complexity can just self-organise itself into the myriad of life we see without a guiding hand, and so there must be design implicit in its structure (god). But this guiding hand raises a lot more questions. How did the complexity of the guiding hand (god) come about?

How did any of it come about. God, Science, The Totality, no matter what we call it the question is the same, and the answer is probably unknowable.

You won’t accept that something as complex, wondrous and magical as the universe "just is and always has been", but you feel that something as complex, wondrous and magical as a god has always either existed, or evolves from the universe.

God and Universe are interchangeable terms, so, what is the difference what it one calls it.

This is what I meant before about superfluous thinking. Surely a god that creates such complexity has to be complex and wondrous in itself? Where did this complexity come from?

Indeed.

If the universe “evolved” god as you say, then I would have to wonder, again, why god is necessary on an intellectual level. If the universe evolved god, then the complexity of god came from the universe. So we’re back to square one again. My argument is that from your position, as a Christian, you’re not explaining anything.

Nor are you, as a scientist, or atheist, or whatever, explaining anything. Why one believes in one version or term or another is a matter of one's type and polarity. And ultimately the necessity you ask about comes down to personal usefulness or non.

Maybe consciousness evolves according to the complexity of the system. This is no less a romantic notion, and to me logically, it makes more sense than a sublime being creating the absolute mess that we call planet Earth, then walking away from it. I don’t view our planet with the optimism that you do. I think it’s very ordinary and I don’t see anything special in people, they’re just highly-evolved bugs. It’s the underlying physics that I find intriguing.

You're just expressing your personal bias and prejudice.

Yes, I believe in the big bang. I said before that the universe was always there, in some form or other. Perhaps the big bang of our observable universe was an emergence from a previous state. The energy of the big bang had to come from somewhere.

The big bang, as in big firecracker? And I agree. Not the ultimate beginning, because as you say, someone is holding the firecracker. So, no big thing really. Should be renamed, just, Bang. Not big. Simply one of many. You concur?

No, I don’t think the battleground is pretty spectacular. Your god sounds deranged. Your views don’t provide a partial explanation of suffering at all. Suffering doesn’t suggest to me that the sufferer is really undergoing a passage to enlightenment. They’re just suffering. To diminish the evil of suffering to some kind of godly test reduces not only your god, but your humanity.

Your opinion, and you're entitled. I just don't think you are qualified to judge.

Bilby wrote:Laird, Atheism makes no sense to you at this stage, because you can’t see how complexity can just self-organise itself into the myriad of life we see without a guiding hand, and so there must be design implicit in its structure (god).

Bilby, you're putting words into my mouth because I don't recall saying anything like that, but to be honest those words are pretty flavoursome. I'm not dogmatic about it though - I'm willing to consider the possibility that (what I see as) the atheist perspective of totally unguided evolution by physical forces alone is the reality.

Bilby wrote:If the universe “evolved” god as you say, then I would have to wonder, again, why god is necessary on an intellectual level. If the universe evolved god, then the complexity of god came from the universe. So we’re back to square one again.

Not quite - because we can also say that the complexity of the universe came from God. Sure, it's a bit of a riddle that falls short of being an ultimate explanation, but my feeling is that ...

Bilby wrote:My argument is that from your position, as a Christian, you’re not explaining anything.

... it is more of an explanation than the one that you've provided, even if it's not the correct one.

But again you misrepresent me - I do not identify as a Christian, although I suffer a great deal of confusion over the issue. As I've already explained to you, I find the Christian conception of God as an all-powerful, benevolent being who nevertheless permits suffering to be implausible - to the point that I am unwilling to put my faith in the religion.

And if I may say (and I take as permission the aim of this forum to ruthlessly critique one another's thinking to lead each other to enlightenment): misrepresentation seems to be characteristic of your thoughts, at least in this thread, to the point that you misrepresent an entire group of people as intrinsically more violent than any other group. You might claim: no, I'm not misrepresenting them, that's the plain facts. Fine, well you've had ample opportunity to present facts and to build a case, but you've not done so. About the strongest case that you've presented is "that's what I see on the news".

To balance out that criticism, I want to express my admiration for your coolness under pressure. You've been harshly critiqued and unfairly insulted and through it all you have remained gracious.

Bilby wrote:Maybe consciousness evolves according to the complexity of the system.

Yeah, that seems like a pretty rational idea to me too.

Bilby wrote:This is no less a romantic notion, and to me logically, it makes more sense than a sublime being creating the absolute mess that we call planet Earth, then walking away from it.

More misrepresentation, or at least misunderstanding. When did I say that God "walked away" from Earth? I instead canvassed the possibility that God and the forces of evil are engaged in a battle, with the Earth (or rather the entire universe) as the battleground, but that the rules of engagement prevent Em from revealing emself (I view God, due to Christian influences, as masculine, but I don't want to offend those who think that the patriarchy should be smashed).

Bilby wrote:I don’t view our planet with the optimism that you do. I think it’s very ordinary and I don’t see anything special in people, they’re just highly-evolved bugs.

Yeah, well, then we have very different perspectives. I think that people are incredibly special.

Bilby wrote:Suffering doesn’t suggest to me that the sufferer is really undergoing a passage to enlightenment.

More misrepresentation. When did I say anything about "enlightenment"? Instead, I wrote about being tested.

Bilby wrote:To diminish the evil of suffering to some kind of godly test reduces not only your god, but your humanity.

And at the risk of being a little pedantic, but to emphasise the point: more misrepresentation. I didn't write that the test was "godly". It would even better be characterised as a test by evil, but perhaps best left uncharacterised: it is simply a test and you would have represented what I actually wrote better by avoiding that adjective.

I searched for "Arab wealth" on google and found this site.

http://www.samsonblinded.org/israel_ame ... luence.htm

Download the free book from here. http://www.samsonblinded.org/index.html

Pah. Zionist propaganda. The Saudi-American relationship is certainly interesting, and I'm not sure I even fully comprehend it - just good business I guess - but the Arab lobby pales into insignificance compared to the Jewish. I don't think you'll see an Arab in control of the Pentagon budget anytime soon, even though we've had a Zionist doing just that. I mean, you won't get a bigger lobby "group" than Hollywood, and Jews damn well own it.

As for: "Jews must lobby for making the Holocaust a mandatory course in American schools." What a crock. I'm sick of hearing about the Holocaust frankly.

Pah. Zionist propaganda

I've started reading the book. Up to page 12. I highly recommend it. It is not propaganda, merely it is simply written from the point of view of someone attached to the point of view of Jews winning the battle. One that I happen to agree with, as can be seen by the commonality of ideas, I put forth in the large post I made a few days ago.

The Saudi-American relationship is certainly interesting, and I'm not sure I even fully comprehend it - just good business I guess - but the Arab lobby pales into insignificance compared to the Jewish.

Wait and see how that changes with the present and future price of oil.

I don't think you'll see an Arab in control of the Pentagon budget anytime soon, even though we've had a Zionist doing just that.

So. Plenty of Jews in the US, why wouldn't one or a few hundred have positions in the government, particularly as they are more intelligent than the average. Look at some of the states here for instance, http://www.arthurhu.com/INDEX/jewish.htm(even if it is propaganda)

How many Muslims have merited positions of international power?

I mean, you won't get a bigger lobby "group" than Hollywood, and Jews damn well own it.

Hollywood doesn't have as much pro-jew effect as you suppose. While common folk are influenced by it, the Jews don't get as much respect from those who hold the reigns of power, as you might think. The values the American Jews are promoting are also commensurate with modern Christian values.

If Americanised Jews own Hollywood, then they deserve it, as they earn't it by intelligence and effort.

As for: "Jews must lobby for making the Holocaust a mandatory course in American schools." What a crock. I'm sick of hearing about the Holocaust frankly.

Yeah, that was irritating. I groaned at that comment. So far there is only a bit of that in the book.

Carl, god and the universe aren’t interchangeable. If life evolves as a consequence of nature, and nothing else, there’s no need for a supreme being. Religion requires a controller to provide the original blueprint for life. These are two very different lines of thought.

I’m just as qualified to judge anything as anyone else here.

Thank you, Laird.

I’m glad you’re willing to consider all possibilities. I should try to shape my views so that you see where I’m coming from.

I feel that the total energy of the universe is the same, and has always been the same. So a big bang may be just an evolutionary phase. It’s a bit like saying: a positive integer and a negative integer of the same value equals zero. Maybe there’s a corresponding universe that’s experiencing negative energy while we are experiencing the positive, so overall the total energy equals zero. If you can accept that, we don’t need a god to create the universe, it just always was. The question though, is what sparks matter/energy to interact in the first place. I think it’s the first stirrings of consciousness.

All of our physiological processes are considered to be fully explainable by deterministic physics. So life can be described in terms of electro-chemical interactions. But we’re certain we’re special, and not just automatons blindly obeying physical laws. We possess free-will to make decisions, and in doing this, grant ourselves a special place in the universe. We alone, do not operate strictly to causal law, because somehow our “mind” influences matter. And this is what I have a problem with. Why should people alone operate outside of universal laws of physics, when nothing else does?

I believe we are automatons to a certain extent. I’ll expand on this as we go. But for me suffering has no higher or noble purpose. Some people are very dear to me Laird, speaking as a thinking, feeling human being. But in the scheme of things, philosophically, we’re no more significant than a waffle iron.

Bilby wrote:Maybe there’s a corresponding universe that’s experiencing negative energy while we are experiencing the positive, so overall the total energy equals zero. If you can accept that, we don’t need a god to create the universe, it just always was.

I can accept all of that as speculation.

Bilby wrote:The question though, is what sparks matter/energy to interact in the first place. I think it’s the first stirrings of consciousness.

Please clear up what looks to me like a contradiction in your views - I might be misunderstanding you. On the one hand you believe that people (consciousness) do not operate outside of universal laws of physics (affecting matter/energy), which seems to imply that consciousness is created by matter/energy interacting, and on the other hand you want to suggest that consciousness causes matter/energy to interact in the first place. But "in the first place" consciousness wouldn't exist.

Bilby wrote:We alone, do not operate strictly to causal law, because somehow our “mind” influences matter. And this is what I have a problem with. Why should people alone operate outside of universal laws of physics, when nothing else does?

Perhaps there are specific universal laws of physics that affect consciousness - we don't fully understand what consciousness is yet.

Bilby wrote:I believe we are automatons to a certain extent.

Why not fully?

Bilby wrote:Some people are very dear to me Laird, speaking as a thinking, feeling human being.

Not such an automaton after all - glad to read it. :-)

Bilby wrote:But in the scheme of things, philosophically, we’re no more significant than a waffle iron.

Even philosophically, the complexity of a human being in my opinion gives it far more significance than material objects of relative simplicity.

To James the Jew:

And, of course, the most revealing statistic of them all is this one:

JEWS AND PALESTINEAN ARABS GENETICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE.
z47\clip\2001\dnafrom.txt Cover Story 1/29/01 USNWR
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010129/migration.htm Where We Come
From Recent advances in genetics are starting to illuminate the
wanderings of early humans last June, Hammer published results
showing that although Palestinian and Jewish men may be political
foes, they are also brethren, so closely related as to be genetically
indistinguishable.

Talk about anti-Semitism. So, why don't you in all your grand intelligence tell us, then, what a Jew is now, James?

Another tidbit from the previous link:

Israelis should promote American idealism to reject compromises with Muslim dictatorships—virtually every Islamic state—and emphasize the American mission of supporting liberty and democracy everywhere -- particularly in the Middle East -- and the ostensible immorality of isolationism.

This call to American idealism (with the mission of supporting liberty and democracy everywhere) for the ultimate support of a “democratic” country whose core political motivation is religious nationalism (Zionism) fighting against dictatorships? Man…

You really are stupid! Your powers of abstraction leave a lot to be desired.

…the large post I made a few days ago.

Yeah, one massive bag of diseased vomit that one was! But, not too far away from replying to it now…

This thread is going off topic... but then, which doesn't... Sorry Leyla :)

Liard, some more speculations to ponder on.

Bilby: Maybe consciousness evolves according to the complexity of the system.

It surely does, and it devolves too (but quite abruptly, and not in the way it has gradually evolved), when the complexity of a particular thing dissipates, but does exist at a lesser degree of complexity as a lesser degree of consciousness. (Interactivity felt between a thing-to-thing relationship)

Laird: Yeah, that seems like a pretty rational idea to me too.

Liard, now look at it this way; “it seems like a pretty rational idea to consciousness”, because it is the complex enough consciousness that is calculating it. YOU (as you identify as yourself) and consciousness is but one and the same thing. It is consciousness/you identifying its self; one and the same thing.

When did I say that God "walked away" from Earth? I instead canvassed the possibility that God and the forces of evil are engaged in a battle, with the Earth (or rather the entire universe) as the battleground, but that the rules of engagement prevent Em from revealing emself.

Warning: Speculation follows.

“God” has already revealed its self, in and of consciousness that is but “God” in disguise.

It is the battle between the “good” (not GOD) and “evil” (a conscious fight [strife] between any two extremes) that GOD (consciousness) is actively engaged in the battle where relative things are the battleground and sustainer until it reaches a certain complexity and collapses with the devolving relativity; because the infinite dynamic nature of it all cannot be stopped even by GOD (consciousness) itself; because relativity of things is what GOD (consciousness) is dependant on, without which, even GOD (consciousness) would collapse. It is but the conscious strife interdependent on the complexity/non-complexity of things, that gives US a sense of individuality as a thing, where things are blindly or creatively driven by a Will created by such interactivity. That is the only rule of engagement and is not actually hidden to consciousness; that is once it achieves certain complexity itself.

In other words, existence fluctuates between the first and the top gear, but never achieves an Ultimate Speed, nor does it have an Ultimate Break either that it may stop. Things and consciousness are interdependent striving forces, and neither allows the other to have an upper hand ultimately, and neither were the beginning or end of each other, hence the question of what came first, or what created what, or what created “both”, does not even arise to begin with, for there cannot be a ONE thing that both could arise from. ALL is right here, in the NOW; a NOW which has no beginning or end in the space-time sense, so no past present or future exists in relation to such a NOW.

Carl G wrote:God and Universe are interchangeable terms, so, what is the difference what it one calls it.

Bilby wrote:Carl, god and the universe aren’t interchangeable. If life evolves as a consequence of nature, and nothing else, there’s no need for a supreme being. Religion requires a controller to provide the original blueprint for life. These are two very different lines of thought.

Bilby - What do you think God is? The thing that gave me the most affinity for this place was that the majority of the people here had the same concept of what God is as I figured out when I was in my late teens. To me, and to Carl, and many others here, all that is, is God - you, me, they keyboard I'm typing on, the monitor you are looking at, the refuse in the trash can, are all parts of God. Although it is true that God and the universe (note small "u") are not interchangeable, it is just terminology we use here to explain the concept that God and Universe (note capital "U") are interchangeable terms. On this forum, when we refer to the supreme being concept, we specifically refer to it as the Christian God, or what other specific god we are referring to.

Yeah, one massive bag of diseased vomit that one was! But, not too far away from replying to it now…

I would suggest you phrase your reply to convince others, rather than me. I’ve decided not to participate any further on this topic. As neither of us will be able to provide arguments that will result in a change of opinion, it is pointless, and any further discussion will just result in suffering for both of us, thus it would be irrational to continue. Your attachments, and in my view your intrinsic Arabic nature, make you blind to the truths I see, while you no doubt think the same about me. Jews and the Muslims will do whatever they are caused to do regardless of anything we might say, so we are just stuck in a pointless fight over attachments to "our truth"; our ego's belief in its rationality compared to others.

While I am disappointed to see that you, and perhaps Dan, are unable to see the rationality of my arguments, it doesn’t really matter to me if you do or not, as what we are discussing only very indirectly will affect my future life [though, should I live long enough, this may change with the spread of nuclear technology to non-democratic Muslim countries]. I shall abandon the desire of my ego to win this discussion, but of course I will remain attached in positive terms, to the group whose interests are least opposite to mine (though this is relative to the conflict only, I’m certainly still anti the Jewish religion and things like Jewish schools).

Jamesh wrote:

Pah. Zionist propaganda

I've started reading the book. Up to page 12. I highly recommend it. It is not propaganda, merely it is simply written from the point of view of someone attached to the point of view of Jews winning the battle. One that I happen to agree with, as can be seen by the commonality of ideas, I put forth in the large post I made a few days ago.

The article I saw read like pure propaganda to me. I don't think you even really know what you're saying when you express hope that Jews will win.

The Saudi-American relationship is certainly interesting, and I'm not sure I even fully comprehend it - just good business I guess - but the Arab lobby pales into insignificance compared to the Jewish.

Wait and see how that changes with the present and future price of oil.

It would entail an enormous shift in American social and political ideology for any sigificant change to occur, or, a shift in Arab ideology. I think the latter more likely.

I don't think you'll see an Arab in control of the Pentagon budget anytime soon, even though we've had a Zionist doing just that.

So. Plenty of Jews in the US, why wouldn't one or a few hundred have positions in the government, particularly as they are more intelligent than the average. Look at some of the states here for instance, http://www.arthurhu.com/INDEX/jewish.htm(even if it is propaganda)

What's your point? My point is that the Jewish lobby has a great deal of clout in the U.S. right up to and including a Zionist Rabbi in control of the Pentagon's budget (during which over 2 trillion US dollars became unaccounted for). All I'm saying is that you won't see an Arab or a Muslim of any kind in a position like this. It was a lobby-relevant observation. As for your claim that Jews are more intelligent: there seems to be some data that Ashkenazi Jews have a slighly higher IQ but there are lots of cultural arguments that account for this possible fact. But Jews, in general, smarter? There's no evidence for that.

How many Muslims have merited positions of international power?

I guess they're not as hungry for power in other peoples' countries, James. They're kind of busy running their own nations, economies, science and commercial industries etc...

I mean, you won't get a bigger lobby "group" than Hollywood, and Jews damn well own it.

Hollywood doesn't have as much pro-jew effect as you suppose. While common folk are influenced by it, the Jews don't get as much respect from those who hold the reigns of power, as you might think. The values the American Jews are promoting are also commensurate with modern Christian values.

Sure, I don't mean influence as in Zionist lobby but more broadly in a cultural sense. Cultural power is still power.

If Americanised Jews own Hollywood, then they deserve it, as they earn't it by intelligence and effort.

Jews are good at business; it's what they do best, really, which is precisely why America is so welcoming. Birds of a feather.

Sapius, the thread isn’t really going off topic. Laird was saying some time back in regards to terrorism that we should condemn the action not the man. I’m arguing that evil is not an absolute force because there is no divinity, there is no point to suffering and that we need to attack evil at its source, by condemning the man. Laird and I are at complete loggerheads at the moment, so I’m trying to clarify my position – in my own mind as well.

Maybe we don’t need to discover new physical laws to explain consciousness. It could be that all physiological processes are completely physical in nature, including thought, free-will, memory etc. So all interaction in the universe is particulate. There are minute quantum particles that permeate through the universe, so maybe these particles interact with the chemical maps in our brains, causing us to “make decisions”. It may be these particles that spur action once a decision is made. If you can accept this tentative suggestion, this solves the “mind/body” problem. It will need to be expanded on later, but that’s it in a nutshell. The essential point is that no causal laws are broken; so there’s no need to come up with a new physical law to explain consciousness. Everything can be explained with the current knowledge we have now, if we can accept that all human processes including thought, free-will, etc are essentially physical in nature.

That’s why I said, conceptually, we’re no different to waffle irons. When it comes down to it, it’s all just particles interacting with other particles.

Elizabeth, you things you are referring to are all parts of the universe, which is just a jumble of atoms interacting, and obeying physical laws. In place of a god - which in attempting to simplify only obscures - there could be a world where consciousness evolves and free-will may be illusionary. If you can fully explain the universe without a god, and it’s a big ask at this stage, is the universe any less wonderful for it?

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't think you even really know what you're saying when you express hope that Jews will win.

Yeah, I agree.

Whole thing reminds me of the movie Constantine. I’ve only watched it once, so there’s a slight possibility I might’ve missed a more profound moral to the story. But, anyway, spend God knows how many hours watching Keanu fight the good battle to earn his right of passage into heaven. Between scenes of fire and brimstone, death, deception, betrayal and destruction, he sparks up a ciggy about every 20 seconds. Guy’s a fuckin’ chain smoker. You get to the end of the movie and Arch Angel Gabriel is demoted by God—loses her wings—and Keanu doesn’t kill her and send her to hell where she belongs. Noooo, you see, he’s learned his lesson—“if you can see evil, it can see you.” And how does the movie end? What is the closing scene? He quits fuckin’ smoking and takes up chewing gum instead!

I mean, like, fuckin’ whaaat? How dumb do they think people are, for crying out loud.

The only thing missing was those guys in green and white (?) singing, “Nicorette! Nicorette! You can beat the cigarette!” Never have I seen such an elaborate anti-smoking advertisement.

James’ posts on this issue are a bastardisation of substance and truth on the same order of magnitude. Only difference is he offers his as a “community service announcement.”

Bilby wrote:I’m arguing that evil is not an absolute force because there is no divinity,

You're not arguing this, you're speculating. You have no basis from which to argue, because the truth of this matter is beyond the realm of your knowledge.

there is no point to suffering

Again, just floating an opinion.

I’m trying to clarify my position – in my own mind as well.

In other words, you're trying to become conscious of your beliefs. And that's a good thing. Beliefs are important.

Maybe we don’t need to discover new physical laws to explain consciousness. It could be that all physiological processes are completely physical in nature, including thought, free-will, memory etc. So all interaction in the universe is particulate. There are minute quantum particles that permeate through the universe, so maybe these particles interact with the chemical maps in our brains, causing us to “make decisions”. It may be these particles that spur action once a decision is made. If you can accept this tentative suggestion, this solves the “mind/body” problem. It will need to be expanded on later, but that’s it in a nutshell. The essential point is that no causal laws are broken; so there’s no need to come up with a new physical law to explain consciousness. Everything can be explained with the current knowledge we have now, if we can accept that all human processes including thought, free-will, etc are essentially physical in nature.

This is as good a belief as any, if it is useful to you.

That’s why I said, conceptually, we’re no different to waffle irons.

You're right. We both do a lot of waffling.

Elizabeth, you things you are referring to are all parts of the universe, which is just a jumble of atoms interacting, and obeying physical laws.

Your word "just" makes this simply your opinion, which carries no actual weight here.

In place of a god - which in attempting to simplify only obscures - there could be a world where consciousness evolves and free-will may be illusionary.

Raw speculation.

If you can fully explain the universe without a god, and it’s a big ask at this stage, is the universe any less wonderful for it?

Romantic Poetry.

Bilby: Sapius, the thread isn’t really going off topic. Laird was saying some time back in regards to terrorism that we should condemn the action not the man. I’m arguing that evil is not an absolute force because there is no divinity, there is no point to suffering and that we need to attack evil at its source, by condemning the man. Laird and I are at complete loggerheads at the moment, so I’m trying to clarify my position – in my own mind as well.

Oh! Please do continue then.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Bimbo wrote:

Can we drop this sort of thing from the discussion? It's not helping.

But later:

Leyla Shen wrote:Yeah, one massive bag of diseased vomit that one was!

Leyla, I find some of your insults highly original and wonderfully entertaining - I mean, "One of the most vile, infirm minds on the face of this planet" - that sort of overreaching hyperbole is just golden. Others, like "Bimbo", I find tiresome in their bland unfairness.

I wonder how their recipients feel about them? At the risk of coming across as paternal: do you think that a person is more or less likely to change eir mind towards your own opinions if they perceive you as respectful and fair, or as derogatory and unbalanced? But perhaps your aim in posting to this thread is not so much to change minds as to have fun, and if so then it would be hypocritical of me to take issue with you, because I am something of a hedonist too.

Even that being the case though, I find a lot of pleasure in, rather than finding creative ways to insult people, finding creative and appropriate ways to compliment them. It felt a little icky, sickly-sweet and insincere at first but then I started forcing myself to remember how it feels when other people do the same for me. Then it became a joy-ride. But hey, I haven't quite figured out who you are yet, and I suspect that to you I'm still just "the nice guy" - I only hope that with you, nice guys don't finish last (put those scissors away now).

Bilby wrote:Laird was saying some time back in regards to terrorism that we should condemn the action not the man. I’m arguing that evil is not an absolute force because there is no divinity, there is no point to suffering and that we need to attack evil at its source, by condemning the man.

I still can't see any reason to change my attitude. I don't see any connection between whether suffering has a point and how we should treat people who perpetuate suffering.

Bilby wrote:That’s why I said, conceptually, we’re no different to waffle irons. When it comes down to it, it’s all just particles interacting with other particles.

And what about when it comes up from it - isn't the whole greater than the sum of the parts?

Hi Sapius,

Sapius wrote:“God” has already revealed its self, in and of consciousness that is but “God” in disguise.

I like to think of it as, "One God, many aspects". Perhaps I am a Hindu at heart.

Sapius wrote:It is the battle between the “good” (not GOD) and “evil” (a conscious fight [strife] between any two extremes) that GOD (consciousness) is actively engaged in the battle where relative things are the battleground and sustainer

...and entropy the oppositional force.

Sapius wrote:In other words, existence fluctuates between the first and the top gear, but never achieves an Ultimate Speed

But of what idealism can ultimate visions be fashioned! How are we to achieve greatness if not with a glorious, radiant figurehead to guide our strivings?