Life & Debt - the IMFs raping of Jamaica

[ride_jc3]

How do you know this; what proof do you have?

[ACEtone]

a disturbing number of people believe in Intelligent Design ludicrous as it is in all its aspects. Do we respect their beliefs?
I respect a persons right to believe in whateve he/she believes in but that's as far as it goes...

[ride_jc3]

leggo...why do you think civs were around millions of years ago? Is something you came up with on your own?

[flashman]

OK in the spirit of debate:

We can't be absolutely sure of anything, but we can be pretty reasonably sure about lots of things, based on evidence. There is quite a lot of ground between absolute certainty and reasonable certainty, and I think reasonable certainty is enough to guide us.
To say that we can't be absolutely certain of anything, and use this as grounds to just dream up and believe whatever the hell we choose? Because it's what we want to believe? And go so far as to say that proof isn't enough to convince us of something, if it contradicts what we want to believe? To imply that history is some vast conspiracy to hide the truth? We're getting into some real magical thinking here. Let's not throw critical thinking under the bus entirely! God (or something) did give us reason and logic, and it ain't worthless!

History and historians are entirely more complex than allowed for by the notion that it is all part of "Babylon". There are always exceptions, but my experience is that good historians (those I know), are interested mainly in making logical deductions from investigation of primary and secondary sources, not promoting some master agenda of pulling the wool over the eyes of the masses. Now, if we're talking about propaganda in school textbooks, that might be a good discussion, but that's really a different thing.

I respect a person's right to believe whatever he/she wants, but I only respect a person's actual beliefs to the degree that they can withstand a bit of logical and critical scrutiny.(I can still respect the person, mind you!). Beliefs can be dangerous things and I think we have a moral obligation to subject our beliefs to critical scrutiny, and not come by them easily.

For me, proof helps. I'm content with uncertainty and generally try to just let things remain uncertain until there is some convincing evidence. You can call that my religion if you want to.

But...hey, don't we all have just great taste in music in this forum!!!:)

[flashman]

One more thing re: our reality is an illusion.
I'm willing to entertain the notion, and certainly many apparently wise people have suggested this. Until I can see through this illusion, I feel like it's enough for me to operate in good faith within how things seem. If all I can get is 'seems' rather than 'is' , then I have to be content with that and work with how things seem. It doesn't make sense to me to say that, sense we are dealing with 'seems' and not 'is' that we can just blow off everything that seems real within our illusion. Since I can't access the reality beyond the illusion in any concrete way then making up my own reality, just because the one I'm in is an illusion, is, to me, a step further away from truth than even our own illusory reality is. Because at least this world appears to have some clear rules, scientific laws, etc., and we can make some jumbled sense of it.
I do understand that people claim to be able to see the truth beyond the illusion (mainly through meditation practice), this, too, I'm open to. But it is a matter of extreme dedication to achieve.
Well, and then I still maintain a reserve of scepticism about the whole notion anyway... there's that uncertainty rearing it's head again!

[ACEtone]

I'm with you most of the way on all you said Flashman.
Your well reasoned thoughts made for good Sunday reading

I am a very skeptical person - what I can't understand is how some people can be so skeptical about some things and totally accepting of others.

Re: Evolution vs Intelligent Design (!) - while the theory of evolution may be a work in progress and have some major gaps and holes, the notion of intelligent design as posited by some of these clowns hasn't a leg to stand on. I know you were pulling my leg Leggo, but surely something as barmy as intelligent design must set off the bullshitometer even for 'a man of faith'. The very fact that it poses as a scientific theory while following none of the rules of established scientific procedure should be enough to convince a thinking person that it is just a religious scam.

How did we get here? In this thread I mean?

[ACEtone]

that was friggin' hilarious Leggo. Thanks for that.

Worms have 'nests'. I suppose they congregate in little worm families there and have tea and cakes and choose to be a part of human school children's rudimentary science projects or just continue their mindless eating excreting lives.

Are we competing with worms now?

Pah!
Get educated! and continue to be skeptical.

[ACEtone]

there is no silence on the subject. You are mistaken.
There is a huge amount of scientific debate on the big bang. The Big Bang is a metaphor for that part that we do not understand or cannot explain - there is string theory and bassetts allsorts of stuff I dont really need to now about.
You have a weaker understanding of this than I do.

I can not pretend to know this area of investigation but I trust that such investigations are exhaustive, disciplined and ongoing and can question the findings at any time.

Doctrine does not allow such. The case is closed.

Believe what you want.
Science is not the be all end all, but if done correctly will lead to the TRUTH

[ride_jc3]

Leggo,

You can’t make great postulations without stating the reasoning behind it. The question is; why do you believe there were civs dating back millions of years? Where are you getting your information from? Is this something you came-up with on your own? Is there archeological evidence?

[flashman]

Yeah: peace all.

This could go on. I still think I could counter you pretty well. And then you would certainly counter me back, and then I could again counter you, and it could go on forever. And maybe we'd both be both right and wrong in ways.
But we all agree on the important things: love, positivity, happiness, respect, charity, generosity, and reggae! etc. right?

As for spirituality in the music, I definitely get off on that. I feel the feeling and where it is coming from and appreciate that. It's just that any attempt to explain it as a doctrine, any attempt to explain it in words is always unsatisfying to me. I prefer to leave it as an unexplained impulse towards love. Maybe part of me is attracted to the idea of being able to believe it, but I don't want to believe something just to make myself feel good, if it doesn't make sense to me.
So, as far as I'm willing to go is the idea: "God"(whatever that really means?) is love. So when I hear Rastafari, etc. I hear it inside as 'love.' When I hear very doctrinaire type lyrics, I identify with it less, but still appreciate the impulse from which it arises.