Jump to content






Photo

Religious People Rant


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Hansen

Mike Hansen

    $$$

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chemical Engineering: simulation, chemical kinetics. Hiking. Project Euler.

Posted 05 August 2011 - 11:03 PM

Hi everybody,

Just a little rant tonight.

I am getting pretty sick of religious people, mainly because not a single one of them actually lives by the code they 'attack' us with... I was going to try to make that line sound cool, but it's a rant. Screw it.

Anyways, today I was in a conversation with a mormon, who is usually not too bad, and I was the recipient of a statement that is both hilarious and horrific. Essentially, it was "you need to stop swearing around me because I'm really losing respect for you." HAH!

Recipe for this type of awful statement:
(1) Utilize a set of moral standards (which you apparently live by) in attacking an action.
(2) Immediately act in a way (judging other people) described as evil by the same standards.

Ugh. I've been thinking a lot about the claim that religion is child abuse (I think it was Richard Dawkins that I heard that from). I completely agree. What a way to subtly ruin a person's childhood, and if successful, their adult life too!

... anybody have a method for forgetting that we're surrounded by such people?
“Strive for perfection in everything you do. Take the best that exists and make it better. When it does not exist, design it.” -Henry Royce

"The error therefore lyeth neither in the abstract nor in geometry, nor in physicks, but in the calculator, that knoweth not how to adjust his accompts." -Galileo Galilei

#2 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 05 August 2011 - 11:26 PM

Hi everybody,

Just a little rant tonight.

I am getting pretty sick of religious people, mainly because not a single one of them actually lives by the code they 'attack' us with... I was going to try to make that line sound cool, but it's a rant. Screw it.

Anyways, today I was in a conversation with a mormon, who is usually not too bad, and I was the recipient of a statement that is both hilarious and horrific. Essentially, it was "you need to stop swearing around me because I'm really losing respect for you." HAH!

Recipe for this type of awful statement:
(1) Utilize a set of moral standards (which you apparently live by) in attacking an action.
(2) Immediately act in a way (judging other people) described as evil by the same standards.

Ugh. I've been thinking a lot about the claim that religion is child abuse (I think it was Richard Dawkins that I heard that from). I completely agree. What a way to subtly ruin a person's childhood, and if successful, their adult life too!

... anybody have a method for forgetting that we're surrounded by such people?

No Mormons have appeared at my door in many years. When they do come back I'll tell them I'll talk about anything with you, but only in the nude. That should take care of the Mormon problem for another ten years. The Christian preachers knocking on my door every Saturday for six months were hard to get rid of. I kept running them off the property but they kept coming back. It's been a year or so and I've been preacher free. It helps if you have an acre and are back from the road.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede, 06 August 2011 - 09:40 AM.

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#3 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 06 August 2011 - 12:32 AM

I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters. I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable. Maybe that's the case in other parts of the country but in Tennessee you get a double dose of anti-sex in School and Church.

It creates such an internal, unnatural ambivalence that people often just go fucking mad.

My older brother's life was irrevocably altered. Hopefully my other brother, who was diagnosed Dec. 2010, will be able to cope sooner.

Edited by Aristocrates, 06 August 2011 - 12:40 AM.


#4 Rich Engle

Rich Engle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Myers, Florida, USA
  • Interests:Philosophy, Religion, Psychology, Chess, Music, Spirituality.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:33 AM

Yawn.

It is so easy to go off on spirituality. Effortless, really. And a lot of them deserve it, for their rigidity alone.

Now, I do know that some people don't like hearing a lot of cursing. I know that because I have a foul fucking mouth and am very good at the art of swearing, fuck yeah I am.

But, I am also a religious person, obviously--Unitarian Universalist. Crap, I did over sixty performances last year playing on various praise teams. I took the Summer off, except for playing at a pagan animal blessing coming up next week, which is just fun anyway you look at it.

Praying is a lot harder than making fun of prayer.

There are many people that pursue the spiritual path that you can't dump into this bucket, which gets created over, and over, and over (because it is easy).

So go ahead, have at it. But realize you aren't doing anything very profound. Shit, I bust on Mormons all the time. How can you not? Their founder alone--Joe, who was a goddamn psycho. I dug up metal tablets and read them through special glasses. Rightio! I'm married to one. Technically, she is a Mormon, actually, she's more along the lines of a pure pagan--that is her practice. So, is my wife an asshole, too? Am I? Just because you say so?

There are a lot of religious dicks out there. There are a lot of atheist dicks out there, too, you know? It is a non-denominational, open-source-code practice, being a ding-dong.

Need I provide you with glaring examples? Fuck's sake, they're everywhere on both sides of the fence. Here, I'll go ahead. Perigo--atheist, douchebag. Peikoff--atheist, devout douchebag. Why? Because I say so. And I do not speak alone. Call me a relativist, call it a matter of opinion, but I know a douche when I'm around one. For that matter, you can call ME a douche, for all that will get you.

So one thing we need to consider is that you don't immediately become douchebag-safe if you convert to atheism. It's just a matter of switching what flavor/scent of douche you want to be around.

Namaste,
rde

Edited by Rich Engle, 06 August 2011 - 02:03 AM.

Visit My Blog!

beyondevenbatcountry.blogspot.com


"There is no way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized or even cured. the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private and where food can be poked in to him with a stick." -- Robert A. Heinlein


#5 studiodekadent

studiodekadent

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:Austrian and Evolutionary Economics, Objectivism, Electro-Industrial Music (Listening/Composing/ Producing), Synthesizers, Goth/Industrial/ Cyberpunk/Formal Fashion, Makeup (more than my mother), Drinking, Blackjack, Debauchery of Assorted Varieties.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:40 AM

Many religious people are shockingly hypocritical.

Naturally, the fact that Christians believe in Original Sin automatically gives them an 'excuse' for not living up to their own moralities. Their moralities are impossible to live up to pretty much by definition.

And to them, this is a feature, not a bug.

If you really want to strike back at them, just deliberately violate their morality and rub it in their face.
www.myspace.com/studiodekadent

#6 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,166 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 August 2011 - 09:22 AM

I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters.

Aristocrates,
possibly you are making here a cause-effect connection between two issues where it may not apply.
It is therefore possible that your brothers may have been diagnosed as bipolar even without
having been subjected to the detrimental influeces of religious doctrine. Depression often runs in families, which could point to a genetic disposition.
But if damaging religious influence comes into play as an additional factor, this can aggravate things immensely.
The existence of term "ecceslesiogenic neurosis" shows to what extent religious doctrine can wreak havoc on an individual's psyche. A classic example is the demonization of sexuality in several religions, where this natural biologocal drive is labeled as "evil".

So while it does make sense to liberate humans from the shackles of religious doctrine here, it is also important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater in a zeal to propagate sexuality:

I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable.


I'd use caution here with the term "encourage". Since sexuality is a biological drive, it will manifest itself anyway, and no encouragement is needed.
Encouraging kids to have sex can lead to premature sexualization; as opposed to former times where people suffered from rigid sexual morality, today we are often confronted with the opposite problem, like children watching on TV films where sexuality is openly displayed.
There exist children's beauty pageants where parents dress up their five year-old daughters in sexualizing outfits; imo this borders on child abuse.

Edited by Xray, 06 August 2011 - 10:00 AM.


#7 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 7,972 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 06 August 2011 - 09:31 AM


I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters.

Aristocrates,
possibly you are making here a cause-effect connection between two issues where it may not apply.
It is therefore possible that your brothers may have been diagnosed as bipolar even without
having been subjected to the detrimental influeces of religious doctrine. Depression often runs in families, which could point to a genetic disposition.
But if damaging religious influence comes into play as an additional factor, this can aggravate things immenensely.
The existence of term "ecceslesiogenic neurosis" shows to what extent religious doctrine can wreak havoc on an individual's psyche. A classic example is the demonization of sexuality in several religions, where this natural biologocal drive is labeled as "evil".

So while it does make sense to liberate humans from the shackles of religious doctrine here, it is also important not to throw ut the baby with the bathwater in a zeal to propagate sexuality:

I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable.


I'd use caution here with the term "encourage". Since sexuality is a biological drive, it will manifest itself anyway, and no encouragement is needed.
Encouraging kids to have sex can lead to premature sexualization; as opposed to former times where people suffered from rigid sexual morality, today we are often confronted with the opposite problem, like children watching on TV films where sexuality is openly displayed.
There exist children's beauty pageants where parents dress up their five year-old daughters in sexualizing outfits; imo this borders on child abuse.



#8 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 7,972 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 06 August 2011 - 09:33 AM

Xray makes good sense, I strongly agree with her points. Aristo, I hope you're listening open-mindedly. Bipolar disorders can be exacerbated, but not caused, by societal or religious influences. Post hoc is not propter hoc.

#9 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,166 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 August 2011 - 09:56 AM

Hi everybody,

Just a little rant tonight.

I am getting pretty sick of religious people, mainly because not a single one of them actually lives by the code they 'attack' us with... I was going to try to make that line sound cool, but it's a rant. Screw it.

Anyways, today I was in a conversation with a mormon, who is usually not too bad, and I was the recipient of a statement that is both hilarious and horrific. Essentially, it was "you need to stop swearing around me because I'm really losing respect for you." HAH!

I don't see such statement as hilarious or horrific. The person merely pointed out that he was going to lose respect for you if you don't stop swearing around him.
Swearing people often come across as emotionally too upset to think clearly.

Ugh. I've been thinking a lot about the claim that religion is child abuse (I think it was Richard Dawkins that I heard that from). I completely agree. What a way to subtly ruin a person's childhood, and if successful, their adult life too!

I think Dawkins spoke of psychological child abuse.
The "freedom of religion" is often cited as a value, but this freedom does not include the freedom of children from religious indoctrination. So the parents are actually free to impose religious doctrines on their children's souls.
If granting freedom of religion were complemented by the children's right to choose their own religion (or to choose no religion at all), less problems would arise.
But when you look at doctrinary religions, the last thing they want is to encourage people to become independent thinkers. Since independent thinkers will check premises, religious doctrinary edifices will already crumble when subjected to the slighest epistemological scrutiny.

Edited by Xray, 06 August 2011 - 02:24 PM.


#10 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 06 August 2011 - 11:11 AM

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

Edited by Aristocrates, 06 August 2011 - 11:13 AM.


#11 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,166 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 August 2011 - 11:43 AM

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

I must admit I had not looked in which section this "Religious People Rant" thread was posted. :)
I merely looked at "Recent Topics Added" and replied right away because the subject is of interest to me.
But then where does it say that rants can't trigger an interesting discussion? That possibility always exists.

Edited by Xray, 06 August 2011 - 11:48 AM.


#12 Rich Engle

Rich Engle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Myers, Florida, USA
  • Interests:Philosophy, Religion, Psychology, Chess, Music, Spirituality.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:03 PM

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".


Hey, I ranted out the Mormons some more for you, at least I did that.



Visit My Blog!

beyondevenbatcountry.blogspot.com


"There is no way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized or even cured. the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private and where food can be poked in to him with a stick." -- Robert A. Heinlein


#13 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 7,972 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:04 PM

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".


If you mean me and my egregious Latin, sorry. It's not my fault! I was bombarded and indoctrinated with Latin by a coercive education system at a vulnerable age and I've never really got over it.

OK, it's a rant against religion. But thinking that religion causes bipolar disorders is too much like thinking that vaccinations cause autism, to go unremarked. What's PC about calling you on a side remark about causation?

Edited by daunce lynam, 06 August 2011 - 01:14 PM.


#14 Mike Hansen

Mike Hansen

    $$$

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chemical Engineering: simulation, chemical kinetics. Hiking. Project Euler.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:19 PM

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".


Thank you.

Seriously, IT IS A RANT. Not a set of well thought-out, serious, generalized statements with the goal of promoting a profound idea... it is a rant, purely with the goal of letting loose some steam in what is likely to be a supportive environment. Now, if I came in here and presented a formal case for the ideas I said above, then you can and should rip right into it, for such ideas are formally nonsense. Of course I don't feel this way about ALL religious people (nor did I bother defining what makes a person religious - that should give a clue as to my state of mind at the time. Really though, what the hell does "religious people" even mean? True believers? Church-goers? What?). And of course I don't think that people become "douchebag-safe" by becoming atheists (not sure how I prompted that one but whatever).


To Xray:
I agree (today!) that the statement isn't really horrific/hilarious. I think ironic is a better term. Reinforcing a belief system right before acting against it... yep, ironic is definitely the correct term. Also, thanks for the clarification on Dawkins' idea.

Mike
“Strive for perfection in everything you do. Take the best that exists and make it better. When it does not exist, design it.” -Henry Royce

"The error therefore lyeth neither in the abstract nor in geometry, nor in physicks, but in the calculator, that knoweth not how to adjust his accompts." -Galileo Galilei

#15 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,778 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:33 PM


I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".


Thank you.

Seriously, IT IS A RANT. Not a set of well thought-out, serious, generalized statements with the goal of promoting a profound idea... it is a rant, purely with the goal of letting loose some steam in what is likely to be a supportive environment. Now, if I came in here and presented a formal case for the ideas I said above, then you can and should rip right into it, for such ideas are formally nonsense. Of course I don't feel this way about ALL religious people (nor did I bother defining what makes a person religious - that should give a clue as to my state of mind at the time. Really though, what the hell does "religious people" even mean? True believers? Church-goers? What?). And of course I don't think that people become "douchebag-safe" by becoming atheists (not sure how I prompted that one but whatever).


To Xray:
I agree (today!) that the statement isn't really horrific/hilarious. I think ironic is a better term. Reinforcing a belief system right before acting against it... yep, ironic is definitely the correct term. Also, thanks for the clarification on Dawkins' idea.

Mike


Mike: This rant is clearly a sign of post traumatic stress syndrome because you were terrified that there would be no professional football being played this year!
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#16 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 7,972 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:46 PM

Mike, Adam, don't fret about your silly old football. Up here we play a superior form of football and you could refine your taste by watching it. And then the hockey season starts....

#17 Mike Hansen

Mike Hansen

    $$$

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chemical Engineering: simulation, chemical kinetics. Hiking. Project Euler.

Posted 06 August 2011 - 09:24 PM

Mike: This rant is clearly a sign of post traumatic stress syndrome because you were terrified that there would be no professional football being played this year!


I think you've got it! Then again the Utes are in the Pac-12 this year so I wouldn't be at too much of a loss if there was no NFL Season. However, I can't imagine life without fantasy football!

Mike, Adam, don't fret about your silly old football. Up here we play a superior form of football and you could refine your taste by watching it. And then the hockey season starts....


If you're referring to the CFL... I just don't know what to say :P .

If you are referring to Soccer... well it's my opinion that no game should be allowed to end in a scoreless tie! :lol:

Mike

Edited by Mike Hansen, 06 August 2011 - 09:24 PM.

“Strive for perfection in everything you do. Take the best that exists and make it better. When it does not exist, design it.” -Henry Royce

"The error therefore lyeth neither in the abstract nor in geometry, nor in physicks, but in the calculator, that knoweth not how to adjust his accompts." -Galileo Galilei

#18 David Lee

David Lee

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines
  • Interests:Psychology and Philosophy

Posted 07 August 2011 - 02:01 AM

There's no escaping those fucks really... they hide behind despicable logic and cite dogmatic texts all over. Good thing I found this thread or else I would have started it.

I saw this posed on a wall of one of my acquaintances on facebook:

Man: What is a million years to you?

God: Only a second.

Man: What is a billion dollars to you?

God: Only a coin.

Man: OK give me coin.

God: Wait a second...

My reply was: Does this dialogue mean that this "supreme being/invention/projection​" is a being and is therefore subject to the laws of physics and economy?

It suggests that God is limited and therefore the characteristics of omni-presence,potence and science do not apply to Him since He needs time to grant Man's request and the fact that He is willing to give in to His supposed creation.

The dialogue suggests that Man and God are already equals albeit living in relative perspectives of the time-space continuum.

LOL.

Her: It's better not to base your understanding from this dialogue, check out 2 Peter 3:8, so you will not be confuse. =] Anyway I don't own that dialogue bro.

Me:why didn't you just post 2 peter 3-8 then? also, when do you take responsibility for the posts on your wall Jaja? =)

Her: simply because not all people give enough attention to a Bible verse. Some don't even believe in the Holy Scripture.

Me: Hahaha. If it is factual, belief is not necessary. It is demonstrable and testable within a set of criteria and conditions. If this God is real and necessary for life, then once a person disbelieves (as faith is the basis for such arguments) , he would be obliterated at once just like if you close your eyes while crossing a street with heavy traffic.

Her: od is absolutely real. And from the beginning He gave man the freedom/freewill to choose either to believe Him or not. To obey Him or disobey.(Genesis 2:16-17) We can choose to live in God's favor or we can choose to live outside God's favor. What are the Ten Commandments if not rules so that we may make a choice?

But if man disbelieves Him it does not mean He will obliterate man. If He did not found faith from humankind then man will face the consequence of hell (Revelation 21:8). And man chose that unfortunate path. No one to be blame except man because he permits himself to commit a sin. Truly God's character is not subjected to any laws simply because He made those laws. Now if man acquires eternal life with Christ, it means it is everlasting. And living with Christ eternally is more important than acquiring a billion dollars right?

Me: nope.

Her: oh. Alright. I just found out that you are one of those A's =]

Me: A's? Hahaha... the burden of proof is on you true believer - mytho-historical records aside. I cannot be persuaded by threats of damnation as you heavily imply.

Besides Ja, perhaps I was speaking to the wrong representative since u dare not even claim this post even though u certainly did not cite it source.

Where does religiosity end and plagiarism begin?

Her:A: atheism. There's no burden of proof here. No need to prove that God or even hell exists. And I'm not asking you to be persuaded with my beliefs. You already claimed to be an atheist, why would you care to question anyway? Perhaps you are still searching for truth. May you find it though. =]

Me: I ask because there was a glaring flaw in the logic of the original post and I was merely wondering as well as commenting if my observations of those errors were indeed correct. However, I am simply disappointed to find out that you did not even own it and what's more, would not even take responsibility for it.

No need to prove...? You speak as it if was self-evident, as if God or whatchamacallit is right there in front where anyone can hear, see, touch, smell and taste and especially test or study. Therefore, we must and can only infer with our faculties about the existence of such as well as attempt to build an instrument for observing that phenomenon. That is, unless, deep in your conviction you do not really give a damn about it.

Really, I am an atheist but it seems that I care more about this issue than sheeps (like you?). I am one who would still like to know what all this fuss is about and find out if I am wrong or right. It's about time to test this hypothesis which has been around since man (or being prior to man) became sentient.

More specifically, I am speaking against this farce called religion and faith which has long outlived its benign purpose and has been used instead to oppress humanity for the rest. Religion of all forms endorses gods and other bs and the best way to go against it is to deny its very tenets.

Back to the point, oh wait, you don't even have one for the original wall post right? I judge this as a bait and switch scam Ja. Tsk, tsk...

Anyway, that's the end of it... for now. Sly bastards those people.
I'll tell him to shrug. - Frisco D'Anconia

#19 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,166 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 August 2011 - 06:33 AM

It suggests that God is limited and therefore the characteristics of omni-presence,potence and science do not apply to Him

Medieval scholastics had already established that God cannot be omnipotent, pointing out that God cannot make that e. g. Rome never existed.

As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that.
For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature?

Edited by Xray, 07 August 2011 - 10:11 AM.


#20 Mike Hansen

Mike Hansen

    $$$

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chemical Engineering: simulation, chemical kinetics. Hiking. Project Euler.

Posted 07 August 2011 - 11:31 AM

As for your argument that science does not apply to a limited god, I don't understand what you mean by that.
For wouldn't a god's being subjected to scientific laws actually be an argument supporting the idea of a limited god, as one that does not 'stand above' the laws of nature?


This is when a definition of "god" is necessary. But if you make your definition such that the god you are referring to (a limited god or whatever you want to call it) has only a few (if any) characteristics in common with most of the religiously-created gods, then you probably ought to use a different word. Plus, using a different word would remove all that mental baggage associated with "god".

Mike
“Strive for perfection in everything you do. Take the best that exists and make it better. When it does not exist, design it.” -Henry Royce

"The error therefore lyeth neither in the abstract nor in geometry, nor in physicks, but in the calculator, that knoweth not how to adjust his accompts." -Galileo Galilei




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




Nightingale-Conant