Comments on: Why Does God Reveal Himself to Some People and Not to Others?

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:58:51 +0000

Eric: Sorry for the late reply, if you’re even still reading this post — I’ve been in bed with the flu for a week.
Postmodernism is awesome, especially in literature and architecture (Disney dwarf columns rock), but I had assumed that its default religion would be Discordianism. If meaning is invented, I´d go for full-on non-meaning or random/nonsensical meaning, rather than a vague hint of something meaningful.

By: realityinquirer

realityinquirer — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:07:10 +0000

JayKay God might have little to do with it but for believers its a 0.1mg of diamorphine shot every time they pray and if really devoted maybe a 0.5mg booster with some seritonine, endorphine, dopamine and oxytocin if your really lucky and devoted. For the super devoted they might merit some vasopressin with booster oxytocin for the super queezy love bonding effect – some butterflies anbd extra meaning.
All the atheists have to make do with adrenaline, epinephrine excess and dopamine deficiency. Unless they learn to do the bhuddist mantras ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm

By: JayKay

JayKay — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:11:10 +0000

and cry and to then pick themselves up and find something by which they can celebrate personally this woman’s life. What the Hell do these same psalms regurgitated mean to me in relation to this lost friend? Nothing. It’s like incidental music in a crap film – it signals ‘have a wee sob now, it’s OK here, we’re chatting about God’s greatness so feel free to sniffle’. God has nothing to do with life and death. God is a man-made concept that is out of date.

By: JayKay

JayKay — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 09:06:10 +0000

I sat in a church funeral the other day and wondered, ‘What the fuck am I gonna do when it comes my turn? I don’t want this religious shite’ At least this vicar actually knew my friend and her family and it wasn’t some stranger pretending he was best pals with them, but what a load of innapropriate crap gets spouted at these things. We have to try to sing these soprano hymns whilst choking back the tears, everyone sits and mutters meaningless blessings and we’re told Gillian’s safe at God’s side – while her partner and her 8 year old daughter try to sob as quietly as possible and her mother and her father wonder how, in their 70s, they are going to be able to face day to day living after the sudden death of their beautiful only-child. That family needed a huge hug and to be able to vent

By: Oliver Wilson

Oliver Wilson — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:28:50 +0000

Well you could propably have put this into google and found several answers.
“Why does God revel himself to some but not others?”
God has apparently reveled himself to Believers and Athesists alike. The theological argument comes from the book of Acts. In Acts Stephean is killed by angry mob and then Paul is converted on the road to Damascus. The argument is that the devil(and/or demons) tread a fine line trying no to remove freewill. When one or the other steps over this line the other does likewise, so the devil had Stephean killed so God took one of his main men(Saul) who was butching Christians by the twos/dozen/hundreds(i’m not actually sure how many he killed)?
Please excuse the spelling it’s late.

By: Eric Clyne

Eric Clyne — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:18:38 +0000

above for feethought read freethought . I read in a book on eclectic mysticism that religious mysticism should be contrasted with ‘vague and meaningless pantheism.’ That’s for me I thought. Ever since I have been a vague and meaningless pantheist. For the Premods meaning is legacy, for mods it is a rational outcome of scientific endeavour or non-existent For Postmods it is invented. That’s what we humans do. We invent meaning. Except atheists intimidated by science and/or left-bank existentialists wearing berets and horizontally striped shirts. To deny the sacred – such a whizz-bang idea – seems a bit uppity.

By: Eric Clyne

Eric Clyne — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:09:16 +0000

To Andrew Rennie: Of course I include myself.
To Berber Anna: Theistic Premodernity; Atheistic Modernity and Pantheistic Postmodernity coexist. Historical sequence reflects dominance of one but not to exclusion of others. Beware of calling the simplified simplistic. Noone has either time or ability to absorb existing complexity. And please note that labelling Premoderns as theistic, Moderns as atheistic and Postmoderns as Pantheistic is not far off the mark. Present conflicts between West and Islam are not between Mods and Premods. There are Mods and Premods on all sides. Israel uses Mod tech to defend Premod theistic land-grabbing.

Concerning your atheism. Until 1880′s or thereabouts, feethought included atheism and pantheism. Shelley was an atheistic pantheist.

By: Realityman

Realityman — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:10:11 +0000

Yes – the van Deferens in women, also known as the epoopheron does seem to be vestigial and cause cysts and tunours, ALso the Van Deferens in males loops around the ureter causing hernias and possible blockages – it could easily have been designed to prevent this – is this heavenly sadomassachistic design plans ? – just bad at knot making ?
Appendix – some say has immunological value
Hair – sexual selection – too bad monks. Keeps my head warm.
Gosebumps – brilliant example – Was God having some fun with goosebumps ? Vestigial remains from the ability to raise fur – used in dogs and other mammals.
Wiggling the ears – essential for party fun. Evolutionary speaking the muscles for wiggeling the ears is weak and absent in some and has not got the usefulness as it does for some animals

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:04:29 +0000

Andrew, I think you got Realityman’s computer sidestep the wrong way. It’s an imitation of natural selection by human programmers — they (being human) needed to design something, and they looked to nature to find a process by which to improve on that design. That doesn’t mean the universe needs a designer — it means computer programmes do (because programmers generally don’t have the time to wait a few billion years for things to randomly start happening).

And yes, catastrophic failure works on a universal scale, as well. If a large gaseous mass doesn’t become a properly working star, it will dissipate or become something else. Stars that have run their course fall apart as well, and their mass and energy is reused in other forms. Randomness really tends to work rather well in nature.

By: Andrew Rennie

Andrew Rennie — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:22:40 +0000

@Eric Clyne “Arguments are just words – they prove nothing” Does that include what you have just tried to prove?