HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE

[Dawood]

I would disagree about your 90% figure. See here:

 

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

 

Additionally, many people are functional atheists or agnostics since they do not concern themselves with the issue at all. Most people in in Japan, China and many European countries do not practice any religion.

 

I would postulate that atheism, agnosticism and polytheism predates monotheism and outnumbered it in adherents until approximately 1000 years or so ago, perhaps later.

 

Many of the theories and ideas we are talking about predate Mohammad, and hence Islam, by 1000's of years. The historical Buddha lived before Christ, Daoism is at least from 600 BCE, but likely earlier, and Hinduism seems to have routes circa 2000 BCE or earlier. By the way, spare me the argument that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, since your evidence comes from the Quran, not any text written before 650 CE.

 

I think you made it clear earlier that Muslims do not believe in the scientific fact of macro evolution. Perhaps I am wrong, though, so forgive me.

 

Those studies in the link are from today, not from the whole history of mankind. All of your talk about what predates Muhammad is really irrelevent in relation to proving who beleives/believed in God either presently or in the past. I beleive Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc. were all Muslims, but that is also irrelevent if I'm simply attempting to prove that more people historically beleive in a God than don't. Even the people who were considered disbeleivers in Muhammd beleived in God...

 

And as for Macro evolution, ok, scientists say that this is a fact, I know. But truthfully, it is as much as a fact as God is (in your mind) because there is no scientist that was alive millions of years ago to witness macro evolution, so the evidence they bring for their theory is parallel to my beleif in God because I say EVERYTHING is evidence for and all knowing , all powerful creator. The evidence for God's existance is in the fact that you are living and breathing right now without help from anything but him.

So, this argument relly can't be won....it does come down to the fact that athiests/evolutists have faith too. BTW I don't beleive in macro evolution, but there is no contradiction with Islam and micro evolution.

[Dawood]

Man I don't even give a fuck. My shit ain't on some I am about to preach to anyone else type shit.

 

 

This is all personal truth. If I die and I am wrong, well I'll pay the price won't I?

 

Pascal ain't got shit on me.

 

 

fair enough. May Allah guide us both to what is most beneficial for us.

[Dawood]

as for the one scientific fact that islam opposes? how about an all knowing god that takes an active role in the workings of our lives? if thats not a giant "fuck you" to everything science has worked to understand i really cant tell you what is.

 

 

Personally, the more contempory science learns about the creaton of Allah, the more I'm in awe of God. The one theory that opposes the idea of an All powerful creator (as I mentioned to Russel above) requires faith at the end of the day. There is really no way to beleive in (macro) evolution except for faith in it's ability to be correct because you can't possibly know for sure. Nobody has the ability to reach back that far, nor does anyone have the ability to reach up to God to verify his existance.

[russell jones]

Those studies in the link are from today, not from the whole history of mankind. All of your talk about what predates Muhammad is really irrelevent in relation to proving who beleives/believed in God either presently or in the past. I beleive Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc. were all Muslims, but that is also irrelevent if I'm simply attempting to prove that more people historically beleive in a God than don't. Even the people who were considered disbeleivers in Muhammd beleived in God...

 

And as for Macro evolution, ok, scientists say that this is a fact, I know. But truthfully, it is as much as a fact as God is (in your mind) because there is no scientist that was alive millions of years ago to witness macro evolution, so the evidence they bring for their theory is parallel to my beleif in God because I say EVERYTHING is evidence for and all knowing , all powerful creator. The evidence for God's existance is in the fact that you are living and breathing right now without help from anything but him.

So, this argument relly can't be won....it does come down to the fact that athiests/evolutists have faith too. BTW I don't beleive in macro evolution, but there is no contradiction with Islam and micro evolution.

 

 

Macro evolution does not require faith, it only requires accepting the overwhelming mountainous amount of evidence for it. Hence the reason that scientists refer to macro evolution as a fact. Assuming that the diversity of life can be understood by physical evidence is the only bit of "faith" that is required. That the physical world can be understood by studying it is the basis of science. So if you don't believe in evolution, then you do not believe that science is a good way to understand the physical world. You should have no reason to believe in any of the other things that science has provided you with using the same tools. You should not believe in the computer that is sitting before you, the car you ride in, that the earth is round, that when you bring certain kinds of uranium together you create a nuclear explosion... I can go on. It requires no more faith to believe in evolution that to believe someone walked in the mud outside of your house when you see there footprints and the muddy trail they left on your carpet.

 

I think we had this argument about the existence of God before, and I do not think there is one shred of physical evidence for an all knowing, all powerful creator deity. Absolutely none, nada, , goose egg, zero, nein... should I go on? The existence of the world is not evidence for the creator God, and in previous arguments you have only used evidence from the Qu'ran or Intelligent Design type arguments to prove it. Just accept the fact that believing in God requires much more faith than believing in evolution. To illustrate the amount of faith, imagine that the amount of faith required to believe that macro evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life is the size of an elephant. The amount of faith required to believe that an all knowing all powerful creator God talked to a supposedly illiterate man in Arabic, (despite the fact that was not his native language), 600 years ago and revealed the one truth to him and only him, and expected everyone to believe in him despite the unlikeliness of this scenario, and he created each being on earth separately, then left evidence that only leads to the conclusion that life developed through evolution to trick us.... that amount of faith is about the size of the the entire universe. So an elephant compared to the universe!

 

And your argument that more people believe in God than not, if in fact true, does nothing. Hundreds of years ago more people believed than not that the sun revolved around the earth. In other words, the number of believers is meaningless

[boogie hands]

here is the thing. honest, untainted science is not developing an understanding about god. god is the antithesis of science. god requires you to ignore the development of our science and adhere to a view of the world that is thousands of years old. its baffling to me that people cannot see god for what he is. god is an answer to dilemmas, creations and phenomena that cannot be understood by humans. anywhere you see god you will also find a lack of scientific understanding. as our scientific understanding grows the role of god changes (in many instances, god is diminished) and you see religious people divided into categories such as theists and deists. if anything, this human reaction to scientific development proves that god is a filler. a temporary fix to provide comfort to a society that cannot fully grasp what forces are working around them.

 

as far as the topic of faith that had dominated this discussion, i feel that there is a lack of understanding of the fact that there are different types of faith. as it is understood, religious faith is the ability to believe in something in face of total improbability. religious faith does not require a single, tangible fact. scientific "faith" on the other hand does require fact which which takes our belief from the realm of faith to the realm of probability. it is true that macro evolution is not 100% provable. there is no play by play fossil record that exists that makes this theory fact. what does exist, however, is enough evidence to make macro evolution more believable than not. science is not putting their faith in this theory, they are weighing their options based on the available evidence and reaching a conclusion based on probability.

 

this is what is irking me when comparisons are made between faith in religion and "faith" in science. there is no relation as faith requires no proof while a belief in science does. when looking at cold, hard fact, neither god nor science is hitting 100% but from looking at those numbers i can tell you that the idea of a god, especially the idea of a god that has an active roll in our universe, is an insanely ludicrous belief to hold in the 21st century.

[Dawood]

Macro evolution does not require faith, it only requires accepting the overwhelming mountainous amount of evidence for it. Hence the reason that scientists refer to macro evolution as a fact. Assuming that the diversity of life can be understood by physical evidence is the only bit of "faith" that is required. That the physical world can be understood by studying it is the basis of science. So if you don't believe in evolution, then you do not believe that science is a good way to understand the physical world. You should have no reason to believe in any of the other things that science has provided you with using the same tools. You should not believe in the computer that is sitting before you, the car you ride in, that the earth is round, that when you bring certain kinds of uranium together you create a nuclear explosion... I can go on. It requires no more faith to believe in evolution that to believe someone walked in the mud outside of your house when you see there footprints and the muddy trail they left on your carpet.

 

I think we had this argument about the existence of God before, and I do not think there is one shred of physical evidence for an all knowing, all powerful creator deity. Absolutely none, nada, , goose egg, zero, nein... should I go on? The existence of the world is not evidence for the creator God, and in previous arguments you have only used evidence from the Qu'ran or Intelligent Design type arguments to prove it. Just accept the fact that believing in God requires much more faith than believing in evolution. To illustrate the amount of faith, imagine that the amount of faith required to believe that macro evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life is the size of an elephant. The amount of faith required to believe that an all knowing all powerful creator God talked to a supposedly illiterate man in Arabic, (despite the fact that was not his native language), 600 years ago and revealed the one truth to him and only him, and expected everyone to believe in him despite the unlikeliness of this scenario, and he created each being on earth separately, then left evidence that only leads to the conclusion that life developed through evolution to trick us.... that amount of faith is about the size of the the entire universe. So an elephant compared to the universe!

 

And your argument that more people believe in God than not, if in fact true, does nothing. Hundreds of years ago more people believed than not that the sun revolved around the earth. In other words, the number of believers is meaningless

 

Ok, so give me one example of how intellegence comes from something un-intellegent.

Or where life comes from something dead. It doesn't happen! so to beleive that everything came from nothing is a rediculous belief. The perfect order of our universe as we know it is sufficient evidence for an intellegent being while you adhere to the imperfect everchanging jigsaw puzzle of an evolution theory. You can go on beleiving that your granfathers were monkeys, you deserve it.

[Dawood]

here is the thing. honest, untainted science is not developing an understanding about god. god is the antithesis of science. god requires you to ignore the development of our science and adhere to a view of the world that is thousands of years old. its baffling to me that people cannot see god for what he is. god is an answer to dilemmas, creations and phenomena that cannot be understood by humans. anywhere you see god you will also find a lack of scientific understanding. as our scientific understanding grows the role of god changes (in many instances, god is diminished) and you see religious people divided into categories such as theists and deists. if anything, this human reaction to scientific development proves that god is a filler. a temporary fix to provide comfort to a society that cannot fully grasp what forces are working around them.

 

as far as the topic of faith that had dominated this discussion, i feel that there is a lack of understanding of the fact that there are different types of faith. as it is understood, religious faith is the ability to believe in something in face of total improbability. religious faith does not require a single, tangible fact. scientific "faith" on the other hand does require fact which which takes our belief from the realm of faith to the realm of probability. it is true that macro evolution is not 100% provable. there is no play by play fossil record that exists that makes this theory fact. what does exist, however, is enough evidence to make macro evolution more believable than not. science is not putting their faith in this theory, they are weighing their options based on the available evidence and reaching a conclusion based on probability.

 

this is what is irking me when comparisons are made between faith in religion and "faith" in science. there is no relation as faith requires no proof while a belief in science does. when looking at cold, hard fact, neither god nor science is hitting 100% but from looking at those numbers i can tell you that the idea of a god, especially the idea of a god that has an active roll in our universe, is an insanely ludicrous belief to hold in the 21st century.

 

Actually, I think only christianity says that the world is only thousands of years old.

islam doesn't hold that view. And there is MUCH proof required for faith in God. The scholars of Islam break proof down into 2 categories, textual proof and intellectual proof.

The textual proof comes from the quran and the statements of the prophet Muhammad. As for the intellectual proofs, One example would be the fact that a person would find it difficult to beleive that a tree fell into river, split apart and formed into a boat (for example) and then someone jumped on it and it and sailed to their destination. To beleive that would be ludicris. Just as rediculous as beleiving that I could place a pile of glass, rubber, plastic and metal into a box and shake it for a million years and eventually have a Lexus.

 

That's what your evolution religion tells you to beleive.

[russell jones]

Ok, so give me one example of how intellegence comes from something un-intellegent.

Or where life comes from something dead. It doesn't happen! so to beleive that everything came from nothing is a rediculous belief. The perfect order of our universe as we know it is sufficient evidence for an intellegent being while you adhere to the imperfect everchanging jigsaw puzzle of an evolution theory. You can go on beleiving that your granfathers were monkeys, you deserve it.

 

It's not ridiculous it is science. I will not bother arguing your easily dismissed arguments myself, but simply refer you to this link, that answers each of your questions. If you can dismiss any of them, I will invite you to do so.

 

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

 

 

This link answers how something complex (intelligence) can come from something not as complex (unintelligent chemicals). It's a dead argument, and you will always lose, so don't bother. That's my opinion, feel free to take it.

 

My grandfather isn't a monkey, he's a Sicilian. The dead one was Welsh.

 

You did not answer my issue, why do you believe in other scientific advances using the same methods as evolution, but not evolution? Is your computer in the Qu'ran?

 

 

There is no scientific evidence that disproves evolution. The sooner religious people face it, the sooner they can face reality.

 

And just because I feel like I am justified in being an asshole, here is a link that shows the inverse relationship between religiosity and IQ.

 

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

 

I must be one smart monkey.

[boogie hands]

im sorry dawood, but from those two examples, coupled with your post directed at russell jones, i can tell you have no grasp on the very probable theory of evolution.

 

please dont take this as a personal jab (although i imagine it will be hard not to) but the fact that you practice what is possibly the most archaic of our current religions leads me to believe you do not care to look at the world from another perspective. what, outside of fear for your soul, would cause this i do not know but it seems to be your case and is certainly the case from millions of others. as hard as it may be for you to believe, i have been to church, had (at one point) christian friends and had spent the early and most impressionable part of my life contemplating the existence of god. i have done all of this and realized that it is not only a waste, but, when followed as the religion is meant to be (as opposed to the selective, religious cherry picking of moderate muslims and christians), extremely harmful to the lives of other human beings. the banning of marriage amongst certain groups of people, the restrictions of the reproductive rights of women, stoning of women for various (relatively minor) public and private acts, civil wars and genocide, even 9/11, can all be strongly connected to religion. in different time these things that you believe may have actually been conducive to developing some semblance of a society but as it currently stands, the hatred and suffering that religion is producing is completely overshadowing any good it is perpetuating in the world. you dont need religion to be a good person but when it comes to oppressing others it seems to be a primary factor in many cases.

 

again, you may be a good, well meaning person, but the beliefs you are attempting to perpetuate are, in my eyes, very unhealthy to you and those around you. its hard to have a frank conversation about religion without insult and it may seem i have crossed that line but i hope you understand thats not what i am going for here. i just want to share my views because they are as important to me as yours are to you. anyway, i think that just about does it for me as far as this conversation is concerned. i doubt all the back and forth in the world is going to sway either of us.

[MAR]

better resurrect that thread with our next post then...

 

I am still interested in MAR's response to the Dr. Laura letter, I wish I could find it. Do you know where it is MAR?

 

I looked but cant seem to find it. Ill rewrite it sometime this week.

[russell jones]

I looked but cant seem to find it. Ill rewrite it sometime this week.

 

cool beans.

[the.crooked]

here is the thing. honest, untainted science is not developing an understanding about god. god is the antithesis of science. god requires you to ignore the development of our science and adhere to a view of the world that is thousands of years old. its baffling to me that people cannot see god for what he is. god is an answer to dilemmas, creations and phenomena that cannot be understood by humans. anywhere you see god you will also find a lack of scientific understanding. as our scientific understanding grows the role of god changes (in many instances, god is diminished) and you see religious people divided into categories such as theists and deists. if anything, this human reaction to scientific development proves that god is a filler. a temporary fix to provide comfort to a society that cannot fully grasp what forces are working around them.

 

as far as the topic of faith that had dominated this discussion, i feel that there is a lack of understanding of the fact that there are different types of faith. as it is understood, religious faith is the ability to believe in something in face of total improbability. religious faith does not require a single, tangible fact. scientific "faith" on the other hand does require fact which which takes our belief from the realm of faith to the realm of probability. it is true that macro evolution is not 100% provable. there is no play by play fossil record that exists that makes this theory fact. what does exist, however, is enough evidence to make macro evolution more believable than not. science is not putting their faith in this theory, they are weighing their options based on the available evidence and reaching a conclusion based on probability.

 

this is what is irking me when comparisons are made between faith in religion and "faith" in science. there is no relation as faith requires no proof while a belief in science does. when looking at cold, hard fact, neither god nor science is hitting 100% but from looking at those numbers i can tell you that the idea of a god, especially the idea of a god that has an active roll in our universe, is an insanely ludicrous belief to hold in the 21st century.

 

To the contrary:

 

Read spinoza's conception of what Go'd is and then tell me it can't fit within scientific dogma.

 

Here is an excersize for everyone.

 

Whenever one would use the word reality, replace it with god. Or whenever you would use the world god, replace it with reality. This is not to be taken as replace the usage within scripture, but in regular speaking terms.

 

I think you will find that they are much the same in their function and it elucidates a lot about how we percieve the ineffability of what god could be and the infinite potential that exists in reality.

[the.crooked]

and just so were clear here, I am an athiest, so I am not pushing for a religious perspective.

[the.crooked]

Actually, I think only christianity says that the world is only thousands of years old.

islam doesn't hold that view. And there is MUCH proof required for faith in God. The scholars of Islam break proof down into 2 categories, textual proof and intellectual proof.

The textual proof comes from the quran and the statements of the prophet Muhammad. As for the intellectual proofs, One example would be the fact that a person would find it difficult to beleive that a tree fell into river, split apart and formed into a boat (for example) and then someone jumped on it and it and sailed to their destination. To beleive that would be ludicris. Just as rediculous as beleiving that I could place a pile of glass, rubber, plastic and metal into a box and shake it for a million years and eventually have a Lexus.

 

That's what your evolution religion tells you to beleive.

 

I think you mis interpret how evolution proclaims to work. It is not a guided process, it is one of happenstance and random occurance. Variations work or they don't, they continue, or they die off.

 

It is no more than if you fail at first, try and try again being applied to an intellectual and biological level.

[Dawood]

We're all missing eachothers points here and this is getting old.

I don't take offense to anything any of you have said and I hope no offense was taken by me. I'll have to contend with what you said about religions perpetuating more bad than good ,Boogie hands. I will say that people perpetuate more bad than good for the most part.

Also, it's very easy to focus on the negative things. The good things that people do are mostly overlooked and not brought as much attention as the negative. Whether the effect of religion itself produces more bad than good would be more of a task than any of us could take on.

[russell jones]

religions have lots of wonderful things, but the inherent limits of dogma prevent one from critically assessing many situations.

 

And I do not think I missed any of your points about evolution, I just think they are incorrect.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Please take the time to read this first post and pray that prayer to God if you haven't.

[the.crooked]

jesus christ...

[boogie hands]

Please take the time to read this first post and pray that prayer to God if you haven't.

 

did someone remove part of your brain?

[the.crooked]

i like your emergence in crossfire boogie.

[MAR]

Okay, I'm going to break it down by question. I'm going to be somewhat broad so if I didn't explain something well enough please let me know. I'm also going to assume that the writer and the people are Jewish b/c if he isn't then the whole letter is basically moot.

 

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

There are three major problems with this question :

1. Since the building of the first temple it is no longer considered appropriate to make your own altar.

2. Only Kohanim (priests) are allowed to preform offerings.

3.You do not execute/smite someone for not enjoying the smell of an offering

 

Side point: It is said in the Babylonian Talmuld that the smell of the offerings during the three major holidays (passover, succot, shavout) were not always pleasant and it was a miracle that no women ever miscarried from the smell.

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

In modern day times it is expressly forbidden to have or sell slaves. Not getting into law of the land issues, it is forbidden for one main reason, the Jews are in exile, so certain laws are unable to be implemented without a temple.

 

The Rambam says that the laws of slavery were only used in times of extreme desperation and in the time of the messiah it wont be an issue.

 

Even so, slavery, in Judaism, is not what you might think. Masters are required to find spouses for their slave, the slave must have the same living conditions as you. If you harm a slave you are just as liable as if you harmed another person. The slave goes free after 6 years, if they want to stay there is a special process they go through.

 

 

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Judaism forbids physical contact with unmarried women (and a woman who is not your wife), it is known as "negia". If that woman is your wife so I doubt their would be an issue.

 

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

this is such a dumb question. for laws about slavery see above.

 

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

No. In fact, if you kill him you are a murderer.

 

A person can only be put to death if:

a. He was warned by two different people.

b. He is taken to bais din (a court of 70 judges)

c. The witness show up and their testimonies match up.

 

All those things considered the court would do as much as they could to find a reason not to kill a person. A court that put more than one person to death in 70 yrs. was considered a bloody court.

 

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Who cares?

 

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

No.

 

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

You don't get killed for shaving off your sideburns, you get lashes, which is not done today seeing how we dont have a true bais din.

 

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

The laws of ritual cleanliness do not apply without the temple. Even so footballs are not made from dead pigs anymore. But if say, the temple was around, no, gloves would not help you, it would transmit impurity.

 

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Kilayim (2 crops 1 field) is a difficult subject, but its highly doubtful he does it, but even if he did he'd get lashes not stoned.

 

Two threads together only applies to wool and linen, I believe, but i cant remember, that the punishment here too is lashes.

 

Blaspheme's punishment is death, but see above for all criteria for the penalty.

 

 

Please excuse any spelling or grammar issues, I wrote this fairly quickly.

[Dawood]

Mar, these punishments like lashings and stonings. Do they take place amongst Jews in America and other nations or just Isreal? Or do they take place at all?

[MAR]

No they dont take place. In modern times there is no true Bais Din.

 

This is complicated but ill try to explain it as best as I can.

 

Moses is recognized as the ultimate authority on the Torah. Moses gave what is called "Semicha", to Joshua who gave it to the Elders who gave it to the Prophets who gave it to the Men of the Great Assembly and so on... After the destruction of the second temple no one got Semicha anymore and the power was lost.

 

Nowadays if we wanted to we could establish it again but that would require deciding who is the greatest Rabbi of our time, which by no means is an easy feat. It was tried a while back with little success.

 

(two Jews three opinions :rolleyes:)

[russell jones]

Why didn't you just say that you do not take the scripture as a literal and eternal prescription (as Dawood seems to). It would have saved you a lot of time. You are not a fundamentalist then.

[russell jones]

Thanks though MAR, it is interesting to find the particular beliefs regarding these situations.

[MAR]

Why didn't you just say that you do not take the scripture as a literal and eternal prescription (as Dawood seems to). It would have saved you a lot of time. You are not a fundamentalist then.

Well because thats not 100% true. The way Orthodox Judaism's is practiced there are essentially two Torahs, both believed to have been given at Mount Sinai, the Written law and the Oral law. The Oral law is there to explain the more complicated abstract parts of the Torah. Also Jews believe that the Torah is eternal, just because there are some things we cannot practice nowadays doesn't mean that its not the law. We still study the things that are not applicable in modern times.

[Dawood]

Why didn't you just say that you do not take the scripture as a literal and eternal prescription (as Dawood seems to). It would have saved you a lot of time. You are not a fundamentalist then.

 

 

Of course I take them literal, and what's so bad about the word fundamentalist? It just means I stick to the fundamentals of Islam. That's a good thing. Otherwise, i'd be a half steppin'ist.

[the.crooked]

That is not the connotation it holds.

[Module X]

To the contrary:

 

Read spinoza's conception of what Go'd is and then tell me it can't fit within scientific dogma.

 

Here is an excersize for everyone.

 

Whenever one would use the word reality, replace it with god. Or whenever you would use the world god, replace it with reality. This is not to be taken as replace the usage within scripture, but in regular speaking terms.

 

I think you will find that they are much the same in their function and it elucidates a lot about how we percieve the ineffability of what god could be and the infinite potential that exists in reality.

 

Man, on your recommendation, I tried to read Spinoza. It was boring as shit, and I quit. Honestly, I've reached the saturation point with "ideas," at least for now, and especially when they're presented in such a direct manner.

 

Word to what you said though.

[the.crooked]

Well I'm pretty psyched that you even tried.

 

I find him interesting because he seems to have a very strong idea of how we percieve contemporary metaphysics, but had to couch it in secular language.