It's about time I brought up my elephant analogy again:

Once upon a time, an elephant was trampling through the dense jungle when his left front foot splashed in a puddle sending some tadpoles flying through the air and ending up in the centre of a giant bromeliad. The tadpoles grew up to be tiny (but strangely sentient) frogs who gained nutrition from the plants and insects that grew or were trapped by the bromeliad.

Generation after generation lived in the centre of the bromeliad, speculating about the nature of the universe, which was defined by bright red and green walls and a sky which varied from blue to grey depending on the seasons. Some speculated on how life originated in their universe, and how they were always supplied by food and water. They speculated that the universe would some day come to an end. They speculated how God must be benevolent, but some who were less content with their lot, speculated that God must be incompetent. Either way, they agreed that God must know everything and must be capable of anything.

- and then there were the Atheists.  They didn't believe in gods - elephant-like or otherwise.   

Then one day, the Elephant happened to come back and for a very brief moment, the little frogs saw the face of their creator god, but only for a moment, because the next moment, they saw the elephant's back leg rapidly descending on their universe.

For a split second, they considered how on earth God could be so evil as to destroy the world. Then they stopped thinking, because they were dead.

Meanwhile, the Elephant found a nice rich patch of grass and started munching contentedly, oblivious to the fact that he had just destroyed a sentient civilization.

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2011 at 3:26pm:




Elephants, shmelephants.




muso,

Google;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult



The cargo cult was a false belief system with as much credo [credibility] as which your elephant story inspires, imo.

And so..... ?



Clearly people [human beings] are prepared to believe all sorts of things.

Some people even believe that they can [in effect] act as God [and make their own life rules, rules which are formulated, essentially, to serve the sating of their own [creature] desires, often ignoring the consequences of their actions upon 3rd parties], and they have come to believe, that there is very little likelihood of them being 'brought to book' for their choices/actions.

IMO, that is belief system which, from my pov, is bizarre, and, clearly is promoting an unscientific 'precept'.

But hey, that's how 'clever' we human beings are.
/sarc off

i.e.
We [human beings, and especially atheists] claim to believe in 'scientific principles', but we will casually brush aside the predicted and obvious consequences of those 'scientific' precepts, whenever those consequences don't 'fit' with our own worldly desires.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Google;


i.e.
Something about Newton's Third Law.


And.....
Google;





+++

hey muso,

People even, even, believe this....


Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian


Which is the way of Cain.

And 'the way' of almost all of mankind.



+++



the here again, gone again, Yadda

Soren wrote on Oct 25^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:

Und zo, ze truth is far from anybody's expectations or beliefs.

The frogs' worldview is limited by the bounds of their perception, so they make stuff up to try to explain the reality of their situation.

Aren't we a bit like that, regardless of what we actually believe?

Helian got it. It's what we'd call in the West existentialism. The Buddhists have had that view for thousands of years.

Quote:

Siddhārtha Gautama

I have also quoted the prelude to the Diamond Sutra on numerous occasions. Effectively that is saying the same thing.
(cf. Nietsche's abyss.)

Yadda - stick around.

The central point of any religion is how to live this life. And that's the truth.

muso wrote on Oct 26^th, 2011 at 7:33am:





Consciousness, or conscience ???

Unless we are a blind person we can all [individually] see the sun rise each day [or at least, we can see that there is some bright thing in the sky, behind those clouds].

But imo, our consciousness [to see a sun rise] is not a good guide [for us] as to what is true, or real.
[though i concede, we do seem to use our 'consciousness' for that purpose]





IMAGE...



e.g.
That person above, i can see that person, and i can hear what she is saying, to my 'consciousness', each day [through my TV].

But is that person a source of truth, a source of 'reality' ?

I know that that person is supposedly a respected person in Australia [i.e. she at least holds a high office, in this nation].

She is supposedly a 'high status' person in Australia.

Why so ???

On what basis is anyone a 'high status' person, in Australian society ???

e.g.
If Julia_Gillard's ratings are currently low, could Julia improve her standing the public eye, if she appeared on a show like, THE X-FACTOR ???

I doubt it.




I mean, whether it is Tony Abbot tomorrow, or Julia today, are the people of Australia, the citizens of Australia, making 'good choices', when they choose those people who will form a government, and then make laws, to govern them ???

What has been the experience over the last 100 years ?

Do we, have we in the past, generally elected good and wise lawmakers ?

And if not, why not ?





+++

'Consciousness' [i.e. even so far as it extends to our supposed political acuity], tells us very little, about what is real, imo.

But i am sure that we are all distracted with our 'consciousness' [i.e. with our perception of the world, and 'reality'].

But if not our consciousness, then what should we trust in ?

Perhaps 'high status' people ?

If you want to trust in men, then trust in men.

Make your own choice.

But that is a silly statement, because everyday, everyone of us does make that choice.



Jeremiah 17:5
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.




+++

IMO, Isaac Newton's Third law of motion is a lot closer to truth, than either Tony Abbot , or Julia Gillard, will ever get to truth.

And i'm sure that both Tony and Julia know something about their own 'consciousness', but do either of them have a truthful, and trained conscience ???

I'm sure that they do.      



Dictionary;

muso wrote on Oct 26^th, 2011 at 7:33am:


Proof that Muso is demented.

Grey wrote on Oct 28^th, 2011 at 2:39am:


We need to have people with opposing views. Otherwise it becomes a mutual admiration society.

Besides, don't atheists drink the blood and soul of  Christians ?   (in a similar fashion to J K Rowling's dementors)  

If it wasn't for Christians etc, Atheists like you wouldn't exist, because it just wouldn't occur to you not to believe in something that nobody else actually believes in.  

Grey wrote on Oct 28^th, 2011 at 2:58am:


They do make exceedingly good breakfast cereal.