If moral intuitions are built into humanity by God,then why do I not feel guilty of things which are frowned upon by religion?

Cituke · 1 day

I worship the sand god.

khafra · 1 day

RDT? Are you a right defensive tackle?

viborg · 1 day

Sleep. (The band, not the verb.)

Does High on Fire count?

PinoyWannaBe · 1 day

Well, it sounds like you have a great passion for the subject matter. Passion is good, and the knowledge you gain might very well be parlayed into other fields. A friend of mine has a Masters of Divinity from Princeton, and now works in publishing, working in the religious/spiritual arm of a mainstream publishing house.

Here's the dilemma I see, and this is me, is your eager to defend the theology you currently have, but in learning the defense, your theology will change. Maybe it's not the end of the world, but if you do it, you will be confronted with ideas that'll tweak your belief somehow.

As far as the school, Jesuits have a subtle dialectic that's commendable (if a little shifty at times). You'll be in good hands. Are you Catholic?

CheatasaurusRex · 1 day

Wonder Boys, though the novel is great. I just thought the film was a leaner, less maudlin take on the same story.

2001, which Clarke wrote concurrently with the film. I really hate Clarke's style. His ideas are fantastic but the guy just can't build a character to save his life.

Fight Club felt less on the nose as social satire than the movie.

King Rat VASTLY AND CRIMINALLY UNDERRATED WWII MOVIE. So is the novel.

The Hunt for Red October The book is idiotic but suspenseful. The movie is slightly less idiotic, also suspenseful, and tauter.

MASH The comic novel hasn't dated well.

The Right Stuff The movie is just hell of entertaining.

gregtmills · 1 day

I appreciate your effort to channel a creationist. You'll be remembered in my Jebus Angel Juice IPO.

dVnt · 1 day

And also... 'rabid atheists'? Really?

This is how you are coming across: moderately bright, obsessive, and pleased with the novelty of your position. You read books, you took the time to think about them... You've earned a bag of cookies.

You really, really are exasperated that people haven't spent the time you've opted to put in. You're also exasperated that people might look askance at your claim that your 12 bullet point path is a bulletproof path to the truth of dualism or theism or henotheism or whatever you're pedaling.

You're all sorts of angry at 'atheists', like that's a meaningful demographic category, and have said nasty stuff about naturalists in the past ('what have I said in the past?').

And I'm making assumption about your subjective experience right now. Do you find that unfair?

dVnt · 1 day

The consensus seems to be you failed to make a point. If you're getting frustrated because no one seems to understand your point, even if everyone else is a troglodyte, the burden to create understanding is yours, if you are interested in sharing something you feel is valuable.

Above you made a comparison between academic debates and the sort of debate that happens on reddit. If you're looking for that sort of measured sobriety, why would you come to reddit?

It's like choosing to hang out in a public toilet, then complaining about all the farting.

gregtmills · 1 day

Oh, geez. Uh, discovery institute flavored.

gregtmills · 1 day

Is an Almighty God different than a grammatically correct 'almighty god'?

gregtmills · 1 day

Okay, I'll try to be clearer: what sort of material innovation would occur if ID was proven to be true? Would there be a flurry of patents? What would the economic result?

in medicine
in biotech
in information systems
in chemistry

dVnt · 1 day

Then why put yourself in a position to look like an ass?

gregtmills · 1 day

Let's call it Intelligent Design, and it is as institutionally accepted as evolutionary theory is now.

dVnt · 1 day

Well, perhaps you're right, perhaps you were being attacked. But it seems you have an ideal about how exchanges should go. I would suggest you either be as careful in your speech as you feel you are in your argumentation, or simply take your lumps.

You are short, rude, and dismissive and come across as arrogant simply because you don't take the time to be fastidious in your personal speech.

That's just me. I've enjoyed your posts.

gregtmills · 1 day

Yes, I agree with all of that. I want to know how I should invest my money the day of the press conference.

gregtmills · 1 day

Well, that's too bad. I think that it's an interesting, pragmatic way in to talking about it. Cash value, baby!

honestchristian · 2 days

We agree, I just was being too clever with that first sentence (or not clever enough).

tmgproductions · 2 days

Ah, so counting wasn't confined to the 17th century. That's good to know.

tmgproductions · 2 days

Actually, the source of the 6,000 years isn't biblical or magical. In 1650, an Irish bishop counted the Begats. That's it. And now he's considered a genius. Why it took 3500 years for someone to figure that master stroke is beyond me.

honestchristian · 3 days

But, by the fact we can have this discussion, it seems the universe doesn't have an objective meaning. If, perchance, it becomes apparent to us that the universe does have meaning, it seems to me that the discovery process that would get us to that point, directly or indirectly, would be a chain of subjective instances. Unless we have the unusual experience of having an objective moment, the discovery will be subjective and the context will be subjective.

I guess I'm hung up on the word 'meaning'. Meaning requires analysis.

EXPERIENCE doesn't. 'Fire' doesn't mean 'hot'.

honestchristian · 3 days

But why assume that our evolved search for 'meaning' leads to... meaning. At least correct 'meaning'. And the object is inert; the resulting 'meaning' is first filtered through our idiosyncratic sensory manifold to our consciousness, then we take on the act of naming the object, which is always a value laden act. A paperclip is not a paperclip to me until I am told it is a paperclip.

I think the word 'search' is more interesting than 'meaning'. Perhaps teleological meaning is a useful illusion that fuels a general desire for search. The stuff we find on the way is the prize, not the objective ideal.

jkt0z · 3 days

It seems to me that the universe is REALLY fine tuned for subatomic particles. They seem to do well here.

tmgproductions · 3 days

And before I forget: the natural data-compression of text. The text is not the world: it is a model of it. Necessarily of course. Imagination plasters up a lot of gaps... This is where cultural detritus comes into play. The act of reading is interpretation, even if the text is 'perfect'

tripler6 · 3 days

And if we're lost to oblivion, so what? It seems to me there's enough to enjoy and concern oneself in the vital present without getting hung-up on the contingent, undefined and unknowable future. The past and the future are imaginary. You can plan, but have you noticed that plans often don't work out?

The good news is the same is true with planning your death. We have the objective fact of our deaths. But there is no need to get hung up on the subjective experience of it, because death is the end of subjective experience.

Confront the present. it's where you live.

gregtmills

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login