Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Religious People - Prepared To Risk?
88 Answers
Question mainly for theists (atheists welcome to comment though) as a study shows that religious folk are prepared to take risks...
Do you take risks as you believe that God will be right behind you?
http://
Do you take risks as you believe that God will be right behind you?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
(Translated from German)
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
(Translated from German)
I'm unsure thought is limited to humans, they are merely better at it that other Earth species.
One heck of an assumption that a silicon computers acquisition of knowledge differs significantly from the 'wetware computing' that beings are, acquisition of knowledge.
So one is building on sand, already making the statement that thinking capacity can not be understood through physical science. One should deduce these conclusions from first, less easily contested basics; or be at risk of proving what was taken as assumption.
I also see the belief is that the conscious considers how one should act whereas I'm more inclined to believe the conscious attempts to justify the decision "instinctively" felt to be right. A decision presumably come to by some sub-conscious process, and probably a process not so very different that the subroutines one could run on an advanced computer.
And now we have an unsupported statement about how this can not be reconciled with a reductive naturalism.
Have to say this has started as one of those texts one finds a chore to read rather than a delight. (Last time I bothered with something like that was some nonsense some guy called Dawkins wrote in order to insult believers in spiritual matters. And I just got more & more enraged at that.)
Maybe someone else can extract anything worth discussion ?
One heck of an assumption that a silicon computers acquisition of knowledge differs significantly from the 'wetware computing' that beings are, acquisition of knowledge.
So one is building on sand, already making the statement that thinking capacity can not be understood through physical science. One should deduce these conclusions from first, less easily contested basics; or be at risk of proving what was taken as assumption.
I also see the belief is that the conscious considers how one should act whereas I'm more inclined to believe the conscious attempts to justify the decision "instinctively" felt to be right. A decision presumably come to by some sub-conscious process, and probably a process not so very different that the subroutines one could run on an advanced computer.
And now we have an unsupported statement about how this can not be reconciled with a reductive naturalism.
Have to say this has started as one of those texts one finds a chore to read rather than a delight. (Last time I bothered with something like that was some nonsense some guy called Dawkins wrote in order to insult believers in spiritual matters. And I just got more & more enraged at that.)
Maybe someone else can extract anything worth discussion ?
OG;//One heck of an assumption that a silicon computers acquisition of knowledge differs significantly from the 'wetware computing' that beings are, acquisition of knowledge//
Not really, the higher the level is set on a chess game against a computer, the more difficult it gets (natch) until, at least with me, it beats me every time by virtue of having learnt from class players and its ability to work out an infinite number of moves and always take the best option, never making a mistake. But the same doesn't apply to playing poker against a computer where human cunning and guile come into the game and it is possible to win holding a poor hand.
All computers can do is answer questions, they can't ask them.
Not really, the higher the level is set on a chess game against a computer, the more difficult it gets (natch) until, at least with me, it beats me every time by virtue of having learnt from class players and its ability to work out an infinite number of moves and always take the best option, never making a mistake. But the same doesn't apply to playing poker against a computer where human cunning and guile come into the game and it is possible to win holding a poor hand.
All computers can do is answer questions, they can't ask them.
Daisy@
//As a child I always wondered where all the extra mummies came from if Adam and Eve only had sons. Even if there were unnamed females (obviously second class citizens) there had to be incest involved.//
Obviously not read your Bible, or at least thoroughly digested the Genesis account. For example at Genesis 5 v 4 tells us that Adam & Eve had sons & daughters.
With regards to the incest - No not at that time. Although today it is viewed by societies as unthinkable. This is usually because of societal taboos or fear of genetic defects.
Were woman second class citizens? Again No. If you read your Bible you will see many accounts of where women were used in important positions, It is only Man himself, who has considered woman to be 2nd class.
//As a child I always wondered where all the extra mummies came from if Adam and Eve only had sons. Even if there were unnamed females (obviously second class citizens) there had to be incest involved.//
Obviously not read your Bible, or at least thoroughly digested the Genesis account. For example at Genesis 5 v 4 tells us that Adam & Eve had sons & daughters.
With regards to the incest - No not at that time. Although today it is viewed by societies as unthinkable. This is usually because of societal taboos or fear of genetic defects.
Were woman second class citizens? Again No. If you read your Bible you will see many accounts of where women were used in important positions, It is only Man himself, who has considered woman to be 2nd class.
Hypognosis, haha! Very good.
idiosyncrasy , //It is only Man himself, who has considered woman to be 2nd class.//
I presume you mean men like the much lauded St Paul who said //Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Tim 2:12-13//
Lot’s an interesting character. In order to protect his male visitors from a baying mob intent on having their wicked way with the new arrivals, Lot offered the crowd his own daughters - and yet God considered Lot to be a righteous man. That says all we need to know about God’s dubious principles – and about his poor opinion of women.
I think you’re making excuses for God.
idiosyncrasy , //It is only Man himself, who has considered woman to be 2nd class.//
I presume you mean men like the much lauded St Paul who said //Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Tim 2:12-13//
Lot’s an interesting character. In order to protect his male visitors from a baying mob intent on having their wicked way with the new arrivals, Lot offered the crowd his own daughters - and yet God considered Lot to be a righteous man. That says all we need to know about God’s dubious principles – and about his poor opinion of women.
I think you’re making excuses for God.
idiosyncrasy, But unlike you, I offer rational reasons for thinking as I do. You offer nothing. You not only accept, without censure, every atrocity that this God allegedly committed and encouraged, and every incidence of unethical judgement dispensed by him, you condone it. Where are your principles? And this because you think it will save your own soul? You’re selling your soul in return for a fantasy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.