Author Topic: Thoughts on Religion and the State  (Read 24834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #375 on: December 12, 2013, 05:34:22 pm »
0
In other words ...
Is a forest still a forest when there wouldnt be a someone to call it a forest.
... (?)

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline kinngrimm

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1026
  • Infamy: 320
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • The Betrayer of Nations
  • Faction: Wolves of Fenris
  • Game nicks: kinngrimm, Karma
  • IRC nick: kinngrimm
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #376 on: December 12, 2013, 05:38:54 pm »
0
No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
yes i did read that before i wrote what i thought could be an analogy.

EDIT: Not necessarily identical
learn from the past, live the moment, dream of the future

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #377 on: December 12, 2013, 05:44:41 pm »
-1
All analogies are by definition not identical, but I don't see how what you said has anything to do with the anthropic principle.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline kinngrimm

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1026
  • Infamy: 320
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • The Betrayer of Nations
  • Faction: Wolves of Fenris
  • Game nicks: kinngrimm, Karma
  • IRC nick: kinngrimm
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #378 on: December 12, 2013, 06:18:13 pm »
0
All analogies are by definition not identical, but I don't see how what you said has anything to do with the anthropic principle.

first sentence in the wiki entry
Quote
...observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.

EDIT:
...
Is a forest still a forest when there wouldnt be a someone to call it a forest.
...
learn from the past, live the moment, dream of the future

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #379 on: December 12, 2013, 06:46:10 pm »
0
"Observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it" means that of course we live in a Universe compatible with life, however unlikely those conditions are. Nothing to do with a forest being a forest if nobody's there to call it a forest.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Kafein

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2203
  • Infamy: 808
  • cRPG Player Sir White Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #380 on: December 12, 2013, 10:02:05 pm »
0
I'm strongly in favor of the weak anthropic principle rather than the strong one, though. The hypothesis of the existence of all possible Universes plus the branches that result from different random events is much more intellectually pleasing to me because it seems so much more general than just a single one with one evolution.

Offline Kalam

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 697
  • Infamy: 163
  • cRPG Player Sir White Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Never do an enemy a small injury.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Linebreakers
  • Game nicks: Cavalieres_Midnighter, Dunsparrow
  • IRC nick: Kalam
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #381 on: December 12, 2013, 11:06:55 pm »
+1
"Observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it" means that of course we live in a Universe compatible with life, however unlikely those conditions are. Nothing to do with a forest being a forest if nobody's there to call it a forest.

This might lead to more questions in that vein.

Offline CrazyCracka420

  • Minute Valuable Contributor
  • Strategus Councillor
  • **
  • Renown: 1950
  • Infamy: 794
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Welp
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegirs
  • Game nicks: Huseby
  • IRC nick: Steam name: crazycracka420
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #382 on: December 12, 2013, 11:23:43 pm »
+1
Observed?  I don't recall the general human anatomy changing significantly within recorded history.  Care to provide some info?  All of the evolutionist studies I've read have been contrary to recent findings or had problems in their methodology.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



You take a literal belief in what the bible says?   :lol: Oh my god man...at least take the "enlightened" Christian approach and admit they are teaching stories, not literal stories. 

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)


« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 11:30:05 pm by CrazyCracka420 »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 - Stolen from Macropussy

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #383 on: November 29, 2015, 09:19:44 pm »
+2
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Sir_Hans

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 477
  • Infamy: 84
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Beached_Dolphin, Sir_Hans
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #384 on: November 29, 2015, 09:31:10 pm »
+3
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Sir_Hans

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 477
  • Infamy: 84
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Beached_Dolphin, Sir_Hans
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #386 on: November 29, 2015, 09:48:52 pm »
-1
Can someone explain to me why so many people keep going on about "thread necromancery" and "necro-posts"? Who the fuck cares? Why does it matter? Is it not better to keep these things in one thread instead of having 100 "age guessing games" because the last one was inactive for an undefined, arbitrary time?

In my humblest of opinions:

Because nobody wants to (or nobody will) read through 25 pages of conversation from 2 years ago just to get caught up in the thread you just necro'd... It is better just to start a new thread and leave something like this in the ground  :|

Again, just my opinion.

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #387 on: November 29, 2015, 10:46:55 pm »
0
You don't need to read through 25 pages of conversation to understand a picture (one assumes).
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Sir_Hans

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 477
  • Infamy: 84
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Beached_Dolphin, Sir_Hans
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #388 on: November 30, 2015, 02:41:32 am »
0
Exactly.  :rolleyes:
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 02:56:08 am by Sir_Hans »

Offline Sandersson Jankins

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1450
  • Infamy: 223
  • cRPG Player Sir White Bishop
    • View Profile
  • Faction: CSA Apologists
  • Game nicks: fnord
  • IRC nick: "There's always a bigger nerd"- Qui-Gong Jim, Star Trek IV: Electric Boogalo
Re: Thoughts on Religion and the State
« Reply #389 on: November 30, 2015, 08:16:42 am »
0
lol@necro

Of course, I strongly feel that any governing body should be wholly secular. Don't really see this as being much of a debate aside from those clamouring for a theocracy of some sort.

But a couple arguments or justifications for atheism, or against the existence of Gods don't resonate so well with me.

Firstly, I see many, many folks denounce the possibility of existence of Gods/Deities (mostly within a monotheistic narrative, albeit) through the existence of human suffering. Mostly these arguments tend towards focusing on the most atrocious of human behavior; rape, murder, and violent malice, especially directed towards women, children, or other types of people perceived as vulnerable or precious.

However; a God is not obligated by anything to be benevolent! I find it fallacious to claim the inexistence of God(s) from the presence of suffering in life; no matter the degree of it.

Secondly, I find it fallacious that a God or Gods must be omnipotent (along with omniscient and all the other fun omnis) in order to retain Godhood.

I first read it in on of the only decent Dean Koontz books I've seen, when I was about 13. The theory goes something like this: Any being or entity possessing technology allowing for long-distance space travel, having existed and progressed for countless ages longer than us would appear magical in nature; the technology so very advanced and divergent from our own that it can only be properly explained, at first, through the narrative of magic or God-like power.

Take another sort of being in the Universe, capable of unspeakable feats purely through technology; powers so fantastic they only exist in fiction. This being does not take the role of the Abrahamic God, Yahweh, Alpha and Omega. The universe did not begin with an example of this God-like critter.

But given such God-like powers, how could we claim they are anything other than deities?

Maybe it is an issue with semantics; to many or most "God" absolutely denotes an omnipotent being above all others. I cannot abide by this definition.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

the administrator of this forum is the Internet Keyboard man? Can only play "authority" in the virtual world?Can you tell me why?