Danoff
Premium
- 34,383
- Mile High City
I figure that "fat chance" is so small it has to be less to have some chance...That must be really small.![]()
I will predict that the human need for (in one simple phrase) spiritual fulfillment will never be fully satisified by materialist and reductionist approaches. Accordingly, whatever the mechanism is that organizes the physics of the universe and the hearts and minds of humans, will continue to provide newer and more evolved religious experiences, both in form and content, in order to appeal to newer generations of people.
Why exactly does that need to be religion?
The creators of most of what is considered beauty (in the case of man made) are often those that understand it to a immensely detailed degree, even areas such as the arts have rules, often complex and not considered by the layperson. Take the mathematical complexity and rules within music, such a claim would mean that the majority of musicians are incapable of fully experiencing what they had created. A statement that would border on the absurd, yet it gets made.
The exact same is true of everything that is not man-made, and I would argue that in some cases a knowledge and understanding of what you are experiencing can make it even more awe-inspiring and beautiful.
![]()
You may want/need to call it a spiritual fulfillment, and simply because I chose to drop the first word doesn't make me or others incapable of fulfillment or unable to experience awe and beauty. Nor does it require a religion or a rejection of understanding to do so.
And has your physical, emotional and artistic satisfaction been in anyway diminished as your knowledge of the subject has increased?Your question is a good one. The answer is of course that religion is not specifically required for "spiritual fulfillment". Many are the ways that a person can be emotionally, intellectually and yes, even spiritually fulfilled, without religion per se. Religion is merely the most numerous, obvious, perhaps the easiest route. I'm currently taking a great deal of physical, emotional and artistic satisfaction in the study of classical fencing.
I am, perfectly.Relax, please.
Odd, you seem willing and eager to discuss and then.................................................I've posted numerous times that I'm not a believer, don't profess any religion, and regard all religions as lies.
For the vast herd of humanity, religion seems to be important. But it's not for me to condemn them.
The first five minutes of the video were great, couldn't tell you about the second half because I was laughing too hard after the line about if you would tell someone that the furniture and family pets aren't marriedRegarding the lengthy debate about the ability for atheists to not believe in gods, and not believe in a lack of gods:
It's really hard to say.
You format, your posts, in an incredibly difficult, way, to read and use
wholly, inappropriate melon words entirely out of articulation phalange restitution and,
That's before we, even, get, to, the, part, where you
reinvent language to suit, your points. Fenestration.
In essence, I'd say that given just how hard you try to mutilate language in order to create a pocket universe where your belief is proven right by facts, there is zero chance that what you are saying could be true, even if the ideas you're trying to convey have a less than zero chance.
He's not alone, that I can assure you.Sorry if my forays into the art of language, leave you somewhat disoriented.
It was not a compliment, but a fact. Most of my posts are meant to be rational, yet cut two ways; to be both thought provoking and amusing.
I will add that @SuperCobraJet is, like the rest of us, a human being with strengths and weaknesses. He is a true Gran Turismo expert, a member of the global majority of believers, and is trying his best to contribute to a thread in which he so happens to be in a distinct minority. As such he deserves tolerance, politeness and respect. Yes, he occasionally mangles his spelling and sentence construction, and is not (yet) fully forthcoming on what his deepest religious feelings and experiences are like. Hopefully, we will all continue to grow and learn together.
You see what he says as praise and that to you is then objective?A bastion of objectivity.
Sorry if my forays into the art of language, leave you somewhat disoriented.
Even so, I'm not sure how you arrive at such conclusions.
Truly as you have stated, the complimentary aspects, are secondary, to the primary of being "a fact".
Even so, a fact still unacknowledged, by some here.
Quite remarkable, how you were able to recognize that, amid all of the alleged contortions and redefinitions of language.
You must be a true guru of linguistics.
But then again, I have always been impressed with your eloquence.
Once again, you do not disappoint.
A bastion of objectivity.
I didn't think it was possible to blow that much smoke up someone's arse on a message board.
Your repeated abuse of the comma does nothing but make your posts harder to read. It's far easier to decipher a sentence that lacks commas than one with an overabundance of them. Do us all a favour and stop abusing punctuation. What you're doing is not art, it's butchery.
guru
He's not alone, that I can assure you.
What you do to the English language is certainly not 'art'.
You see what he says as praise and that to you is then objective?
Kind of highlights the problem you have determining what is objective and subjective.
That is Dotini's opinion on the subject, as such its totally subjective, that's not a slight to either you or Dotini, but rather a simple fact.
Let's start with the first sentence of the part of your post I just quoted.
Why on earth is there a comma in the middle of it?
Your repeated abuse of the comma does nothing but make your posts harder to read. It's far easier to decipher a sentence that lacks commas than one with an overabundance of them. Do us all a favour and stop abusing punctuation. What you're doing is not art, it's butchery.
Good English writing is succinct and contains no unnecessary parts. You appear to be yet to grasp this. Being verbose can cut both ways if misused. Simply throwing more words at a topic will not make you better understood unless those words are carefully chosen.
Do not simply choose the words that fit your preconceptions. Choose words that will be understood by your readers, and will create the images and scenes that you wish them to perceive. It's of no use to complain that your readers don't understand your language, if you're making no effort to communicate in a manner in which they are capable of understanding. You might as well curse the wind for blowing.
I didn't think it was possible to blow that much smoke up someone's arse on a message board.
There's a delicious irony to a person who so heavily champions the validity of Christianity using a word which has such strong connections to Hinduism and Buddhism.
That's odd because you present your subjective beliefs as objective factAs is yours and everyone elses.
Let me put it this way:
Dotini's subjective opinion, allows more room for objectivety, than many in this thread.
Speaking of simple facts, odd how you skipped right over the "a fact", portion of our dialoque and did not comment.
As to choice of words, under the circumstances, I doubt that will make any significant difference.
That's odd because you present your subjective beliefs as objective fact
From my individual perspective, it is fact, which is subjective evidence.
It is not an objective fact, unless you consider it a well based theory, and decided to accept it as such.
As said earlier, science can only provide, what is physcally verifiable, at a given point in time.
So as history clearly shows, even from a scientific perspective, there are yet many things which maybe discovered, that there is presently no verification for.
So the whole process is one of diligent objectivity, or never saying, what is now is all there is.
Now, that being the case, it is a extremely narrow and historically precarious position to preclude anything as non existent, that there is no scientific verification for presently.
And that is just the situation, from the scientific side, which again is limited.
Keep up
Nice try, but no cigar.
The "a fact" referred too in the discussion, is the wordwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence.
From my individual perspective, it is fact, which is subjective evidence.
It is not an objective fact, unless you consider it a well based theory, and decided to accept it as such.
As said earlier, science can only provide, what is physcally verifiable, at a given point in time.
So as history clearly shows, even from a scientific perspective, there are yet many things which maybe discovered, that there is presently no verification for.
So the whole process is one of diligent objectivity, or never saying, what is now is all there is.
Now, that being the case, it is a extremely narrow and historically precarious position to preclude anything as non existent, that there is no scientific verification for presently.
And that is just the situation, from the scientific side, which again is limited.
And still you seem to be utterly unaware of what the scientific method does and how it works.From my individual perspective, it is fact, which is subjective evidence.
It is not an objective fact, unless you consider it a well based theory, and decided to accept it as such.
As said earlier, science can only provide, what is physcally verifiable, at a given point in time.
So as history clearly shows, even from a scientific perspective, there are yet many things which maybe discovered, that there is presently no verification for.
So the whole process is one of diligent objectivity, or never saying, what is now is all there is.
Now, that being the case, it is a extremely narrow and historically precarious position to preclude anything as non existent, that there is no scientific verification for presently.
And that is just the situation, from the scientific side, which again is limited.
Well maybe you should be a bit clearer given that I refered to the last message you posted.Nice try, but no cigar.
The "a fact" referred too in the discussion, is the wordwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence.
Superb question.I feel confident there is more advanced intelligence out there, way above us.
I do however not believe in a bearded man in the clouds, so do I believe in God or not?
I feel confident there is more advanced intelligence out there, way above us.
I do however not believe in a bearded man in the clouds, so do I believe in God or not?