The Rabbit Hole | Page 173 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Peering down the algorithmic trading rabbit hole 11 replies

Badgers Bolt hole 39 replies

Different Charting software: Hole in charts? 0 replies

Pipbuilder's hole 2 replies

Black Hole Trading 0 replies

Attachments: The Rabbit Hole
Exit Attachments

The Rabbit Hole

  • #3,441
  • Apr 29, 2017 4:25am Apr 29, 2017 4:25am
Quoting jen101
{quote} Yes. Is it not a certain God who supposedly advocate kill all infidels?
According to who? The man who originated such passage in the liturgy you refer to or God itself?
  • #3,442
  • Edited 5:04am Apr 29, 2017 4:44am | Edited 5:04am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} According to who? The man who originated such passage in the liturgy you refer to or God itself?
Was he not God's messenger? God is in the minds of whatever people choose to believe, so it should be the whole religion that is questioned.

What is the difference between a religion and a cult or an absolute on which one bases every aspect of their lives? Whose opinion matters? Yours or a few billion others?
  • #3,443
  • Apr 29, 2017 4:46am Apr 29, 2017 4:46am
Another video that I have been passed:
https://youtu.be/PMviZCjUoSY
  • #3,444
  • Apr 29, 2017 5:29am Apr 29, 2017 5:29am
Quoting jen101
{quote} Was he not God's messenger? God is in the minds of whatever people choose to believe, so it should be the whole religion that is questioned. What is the difference between a religion and a cult or an absolute on which one bases every aspect of their lives? Whose opinion matters? Yours or a few billion others?

Was he not God's messenger?

I don't know. How would one go on to established that from an objective point of view? According to his followers? A text reference? Still, isn't that claim not derived from the man's devout followers or the so called origin who made such a claim? The point is, there is no way to establish that God is at fault for all the crimes you accuse him/her/it of committing, but man himself.

God is in the minds of whatever people choose to believe, so it should be the whole religion that is questioned.

God is only in the minds of his followers because they made a conscious choice to believe. As far questioning a religion, IMO is fair game, anything can be questioned! The concept of God and Religion are separate issues.

What is the difference between a religion and a cult or an absolute on which one bases every aspect of their lives? Whose opinion matters? Yours or a few billion others?

Well the word "Cult" is a pejorative term, and is hard to define, but 20th century connotations suggest negative associations such as brain washing, conversion, abuse. Religion is defined as established beliefs that is widely accepted within a given culture and has endured over time within a historical context.

Every opinion matters, but it's the dominant culture that wins in the end. However that is subject to change, as popular culture, and subordinate culture change roles of being the dominant culture as socio-economic conditions of societies evolve over time.
  • #3,445
  • Apr 29, 2017 5:40am Apr 29, 2017 5:40am
Quoting verv
{quote} I replied to DrManhatten's post where it said: "The problem with Post Modern theories is that if there is no universal Truth, how can anyone objectively criticize human acts such as the Holocaust, slavery, forced female genital mutilation?" Which of course implies that there must be a universal truth if we are to objectively judge. ...hope it is clear now how this came up initially. Does God have a role in morality, depends if he exists or not, and anyone claiming perfect knowledge on that topic is talking shit.
....I think it boils down to me believing that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Clearly some kinds of behaviour are acceptable in some cultures and deemed abhorrent in others.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,446
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:09am Apr 29, 2017 6:09am
Just pure brilliance.
https://youtu.be/g1w-K4DbJMk
  • #3,447
  • Edited 6:36am Apr 29, 2017 6:17am | Edited 6:36am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Was he not God's messenger? I don't know. How would one go on to established that from an objective point of view? According to his followers? A text reference? Still, isn't that claim not derived from the man's devout followers or the so called origin who made such a claim?
You're missing my point. You cannot separate a religion's God from the entire religion itself. All is in the minds of the people who choose to believe. You cannot say that the God is pure and good, but the messenger got it all wrong or question whether or not he was even the messenger! The followers believe it, so you have to respect that. The messenger is their only link to their God and whether the God is real or imaginary, is irrelevant.

Edit: If people want to choose some illiterate paedo goat herder or whatever he was as their messenger from their God, who are you to argue?
  • #3,448
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:19am Apr 29, 2017 6:19am
Quoting DrManhatten
... The concept of God and Religion are separate issues.
Well done. You have just rescued your credibility after that earlier bollox concerning Truth.


Quoting DrManhatten
.... Well the word "Cult" is a pejorative term, and is hard to define, but 20th century connotations suggest....
No, the word 'cult' has roots back into French and Latin, but has been twisted in recent years to imply witless behaviour by some.

BTW it appears that devil worship was invented by an Irishman ... o'Cult ... just my opinion.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,449
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:20am Apr 29, 2017 6:20am
'afternoon Jen
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,450
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:34am Apr 29, 2017 6:34am
Quoting Exodus
'afternoon Jen
Good afternoon.
  • #3,451
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:38am Apr 29, 2017 6:38am
Quoting jen101
{quote} You're missing my point. You cannot separate a religion's God from the entire religion itself. All is in the minds of the people who choose to believe. You cannot say that the God is pure and good, but the messenger got it all wrong or question whether or not he was even the messenger! The followers believe it, so you have to respect that. The messenger is their only link to their God and whether the God is real or imaginary, is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree. You asked the question "was he not God's messenger? My response to that question was appropriate in the context you presented.
My premise is that the concept of God itself would be implied by your non believing standards is man made, therefore your argument of GOD, having been the cause or the belief of such a God is of mans conflicts, or that he sent a message to man himself is not proven. I contend that it isn't. Yes you can separate the debate of religion and God itself. If you are specifically discussing a particular religion then that is where your should clarify more specifically.
  • #3,452
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:42am Apr 29, 2017 6:42am
Quoting Exodus
{quote}Well done. You have just rescued your credibility after that earlier bollox concerning Truth. {quote}No, the word 'cult' has roots back into French and Latin, but has been twisted in recent years to imply witless behaviour by some. BTW it appears that devil worship was invented by an Irishman ... o'Cult ... just my opinion.

Earlier bollox concerning truth? Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes the word cult has such roots, I was referring to the contemporary definition of it, not it's origins. It has many different definitions and connotations that can vary, hence why I stated it was a pejorative term and hard to define.
  • #3,453
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:43am Apr 29, 2017 6:43am
Quoting jen101
Just pure brilliance. https://youtu.be/g1w-K4DbJMk
Thank you for posting that link.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,454
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:48am Apr 29, 2017 6:48am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Earlier bollox concerning truth? Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes the word cult has such roots, I was referring to the contemporary definition of it, not it's origins. It has many different definitions and connotations that can vary, hence why I stated it was a pejorative term and hard to define.
" Truth as you well know is a subjective term, so it all depends on the context which it is referred as such"

It is possible that I have not perceived the difference between "Truth" and "truth". To me, "truth" is a statement of fact and not an interpretation of anything, therefore its origins are not open to discussion. Stories on the other hand......

I have just been dispatched on an errand, so later guys...
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,455
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:50am Apr 29, 2017 6:50am
Quoting jen101
{quote} Edit: If people want to choose some illiterate paedo goat herder or whatever he was as their messenger from their God, who are you to argue?
I am not anyone to argue ones beliefs, as everybody is free to choose to believe in whatever they want, that goes without saying of course!
  • #3,456
  • Apr 29, 2017 6:54am Apr 29, 2017 6:54am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} I respectfully disagree. You asked the question "was he not God's messenger? My response to that question was appropriate in the context you presented. My premise is that the concept of God itself would be implied by your non believing standards is man made, therefore your argument of GOD, having been the cause or the belief of such a God is of mans conflicts, or that he sent a message to man himself is not proven. I contend that it isn't. Yes you can separate the debate of religion and God itself. If you are specifically discussing a particular...
What is your definition of God? Are you referring to some universal higher power or in a religious sense? Or is God just something that someone worships? In which case, God could be a Dominoes pizza.

I think we are accepting here that there is a/ are certain God/s per religion. Religion is entirely a man made concept, as Christopher Hitchens says, to explain phenomena in the past when the Science was absent. Therefore, God in reference to the religion, is a man made concept too. So, yes, man is responsible for atrocities, but so is the whole God and religion thing in his head, which he chose to subscribe to in the first place, or was weak enough to be brainwashed into.

I would like to spell out a particular religion that at the moment is causing the most conflict, but you know the score on here. Not that it matters too much, because there are plenty of parallels between most of them.
  • #3,457
  • Apr 29, 2017 7:07am Apr 29, 2017 7:07am
Quoting Exodus
{quote} " Truth as you well know is a subjective term, so it all depends on the context which it is referred as such" It is possible that I have not perceived the difference between "Truth" and "truth". To me, "truth" is a statement of fact and not an interpretation of anything, therefore its origins are not open to discussion. Stories on the other hand...... I have just been dispatched on an errand, so later guys...
This was in response to "absolute Truth" in the philosophical context, then there is relative truth. Statement of fact as you question only applies to logic. In the general sense, as I earlier intimated about common truths, is an acceptance of a trying to attain absolute truth in the religious context, which I believe doesn't exists. It can be argued both ways, "absolute truth is what is always valid regardless of parameters, or context and can be contrasted with relative truth, such as certain scientific theories proven as such or mathematical equations of physics. But even that can be argued as being absolute.
  • #3,458
  • Apr 29, 2017 7:24am Apr 29, 2017 7:24am
Quoting jen101
{quote} What is your definition of God? Are you referring to some universal higher power or in a religious sense? Or is God just something that someone worships? In which case, God could be a Dominoes pizza. I think we are accepting here that there is a/ are certain God/s per religion. Religion is entirely a man made concept, as Christopher Hitchens says, to explain phenomena in the past when the Science was absent. Therefore, God in reference to the religion, is a man made concept too. So, yes, man is responsible for atrocities, but so is the whole...
Well you were not asking me what my definition of God was, I was merely responding to the premise in which you presented your original argument of God or Gods being the source for mans conflicts, when clearly history refutes that assertion. The only reason that even comes up as a pretext, is the nations who do such warring or engage in such conflicts of destroying each other is to justify their cause as being moral. Everything else I can not disagree with you on as religion or God being man made, as there is no way to substantiate that point of view. Either way each side of the argument negates each other on the premise of non-substantiation.

As far as my definition of God, I don't view it as a living being that reigns all moral authority over everyone and hold to account our actions, but more of a omniscience energy force that we are all part of. The word God derived from the Germanic term "Gott" is an outdated term to describe such a concept, but that is my view as I don't think God if you will can be described in human terms.

Oh and that particular religion you speak of, keep in mind most religions in the world have at some point in their history have experienced or went through some sort of reformation. The one that is creating such conflict is one that has not since it's inception. But my belief is that is only because right now the Post Modernist doctrine doesn't allow for such discussions in which the possibility of such reformation can take place. We are currently in a major culture war of ideas, and at some point it will be forced with that option if it is to survive in the dictum's of humanity.
  • #3,459
  • Apr 29, 2017 8:02am Apr 29, 2017 8:02am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Well you were not asking me what my definition of God was, I was merely responding to the premise in which you presented your original argument of God or Gods being the source for mans conflicts, when clearly history refutes that assertion. The only reason that even comes up as a pretext, is the nations who do such warring or engage in such conflicts of destroying each other is to justify their cause as being moral. Everything else I can not disagree with you on as religion or God being man made, as there is no way to substantiate that point...
I didn't ask you before what your definition of God was because it is generally assumed that you are talking about the God of a particular religion or religions. It then crossed my mind that perhaps you were not. In which case, to avoid confusion, perhaps you should say "omniscience energy force" or whatever, which really has nothing to do with any religion. Then I would agree with you, that that is not man made, but is a power over and above all living things. So no, then that would not be responsible for atrocities or the belief of such be the cause. So we are not really talking about religion at all.

There is an awful lot of order in the universe that science cannot yet explain. But it doesn't mean that we can plug in the holes in our knowledge by making up some fairy tales, stick it in a book and then living our lives by it for the next 2000 years. To repeat Christopher Hitchens, religion was our first attempt at explaining our world, but today we know a lot better. Disease is not a curse because you've upset some God or whatever, but an infection of micro-organisms; earthquakes do not mean hell opening up... Jews and Muslims didn't eat pork because it was dangerous, pork spoils very quickly at room temperature. Religion was used to educate the masses. But nowadays, pork isn't dangerous as we've figured out refrigeration, so why aren't Jews and Muslims eating pork still? All down to brainwashing. Best way is to get them young, before they develop any ability to question, then by the time they are old enough, it is so intrinsically in their make up, it is there for good.

My own theory is these messengers probably had a dose of magic mushrooms they found on the hillside and started imagining they had special powers, then went back to the villagers to tell them all of their revelations. So, it spread from there and got written down on some rags. It's more probable I am right.
  • #3,460
  • Edited 12:30pm Apr 29, 2017 9:19am | Edited 12:30pm
This to me, is creationism. Love Brian Cox!
https://youtu.be/udefAsZem98
Inflationary multiverses mean our existence is inevitable.
2 traders viewing now