Are there only two philosophical questions?

God vs the Devil and Evolution vs The Creation story. Is this just one question really? If so, what would be a better encapsulation of it? Discuss.

not one question unless you associate evolution with evil.

as for other philosophical questions, we still have: ketchup or mustard on your hot dog, spit or swallow, and the meaning of life.

lumberjim wrote:

spit or swallow

you forgot gargle.

If you want to make just one question, it would be ((Big Bang + Abiogenesis + Evolution) AND/OR (God vs Devil)), where you figure out the value of AND/OR. Though is God vs. Devil really appropriate? Unless they're of equal power, it's not really a "vs" relationship.

lumberjim wrote:

as for other philosophical questions, we still have: ketchup or mustard on your hot dog, spit or swallow, and the meaning of life.

To even suggest anything but mustard jeopardizes your eternal soul. Only goats put catsup on a dog.

Griff wrote:

To even suggest anything but mustard jeopardizes your eternal soul. Only goats put catsup on a dog.

I concur, proffesor G. ketchup on your hotdog is akin to drinking water from a coffee mug. it's elementally wrong and speaks of weakness in character. ketchup is for french fries. duh.

lumberjim wrote:

I concur, proffesor G. ketchup on your hotdog is akin to drinking water from a coffee mug.

You guys are nuts. Ketchup, catsup or however the hell you spell it is a fundamental part of the hot dog experience. Its the American thing to do. Mustard is good also but mustard by itself is for bratz and bratz are NOT hot dogs. Saur kraut is ok, I suppose, (but your pushing it) but a Cal Ripkin, Jr. ball park hot dog without ketchup is like apple pie without vanilla ice cream or hockey without a fight or baseball without a 7th inning stretch or a mustang without a stick. Blasphemy. Oh, and Vidalia Onion relish is also acceptable. Put some South in yo' mouth, son. :)

Ketchup, swallow, and 42

Hmm. Did I reveal too much there? I might not be telling the truth about the ketchup ...

ok, beestie. you're a brit, are you not? and yet you have the unmitigated gall to talk about ketchup being part of the american experience on a hot dog?! you got a lot a damn nerve. i mean..... i mean.....i mean, i'm sittin here on the group W bench, and you ........oh nevermind. that's like me trying to talk about......shit. whatever you english are supposed to know about......

....crap. that would have been better if you limeys had some national identity. piss....oh wait.....i got it....that would be like me telling you how to use sarcasm to embarrass someone.

yeah...nailed it.

lumberjim wrote:

how to use sarcasm to embarrass someone.

What else is sarcasm used for?
[SIZE=1]PS Do you yanks really call us limeys?!?
PPS You'll note that I have the sense to keep away from the mustard/ketchup question![/SIZE]

limey wrote:

[size=1]PS Do you yanks really call us limeys?!?
[/size]

only in an affectionate jabbing way. do you really call us yanks? ;)

Beestie wrote:

You guys are nuts. Ketchup, catsup or however the hell you spell it is a fundamental part of the hot dog experience. Its the American thing to do. Mustard is good also but mustard by itself is for bratz and bratz are NOT hot dogs. Saur kraut is ok, I suppose, (but your pushing it) but a Cal Ripkin, Jr. ball park hot dog without ketchup is like apple pie without vanilla ice cream or hockey without a fight or baseball without a 7th inning stretch or a mustang without a stick. Blasphemy. Oh, and Vidalia Onion relish is also acceptable. Put some South in yo' mouth, son. :)

La La La la la la la..I can't hear you! :eek: Don't try to pass Cal off as a baseball icon either! ;)

lumberjim wrote:

only in an affectionate jabbing way. do you really call us yanks? ;)

Only in an affectionate, jabbing sort of way :p !

Wait a second. . . . if you put mustard <i>and</i> catsup on your hot dog, does it cancel out a little bit of the wrongness of the catsup? What if you also put pickle relish and mayo on it?

That being said, I would like to point out that Sabrettes are <b>the only hotdogs</b> that should ever be eaten. Ballparks, Hebrew National, Oscar Mayer... eww. Nathans are acceptable when there is a shortage of real hot dogs.

That is all.

A hot dog's sole raison d'etre is a vehicle for sauerkraut consumption.

elf wrote:

That being said, I would like to point out that Sabrettes are the only hotdogs that should ever be eaten.

You forgot Thumans.

It appears to me the most powerful objection to a belief in God, is the fact of evil. Most likely for agnostics it is the appaling depth of human suffering, that makes the idea of a loving Creator seem so hard to understand. Thus, disposing them toward their agnosticism, atheism, or an unseemingly far fetched beliefs as life just being a scientific phenonomen.

"Those who have suffered much become very bitter or very gentle." - Will Durant

Brown Thrasher wrote:

It appears to me the most powerful objection to a belief in God, is the fact of evil. Most likely for agnostics it is the appaling depth of human suffering, that makes the idea of a loving Creator seem so hard to understand. Thus, disposing them toward their agnosticism, atheism, or an unseemingly far fetched beliefs as life just being a scientific phenonomen.

I'm thinking that you have that ass backwards.

Do you think that it may just be possible that a good portion of the abuses heaped upon people were at the behest of the leaders of said creator's church? I think that history bears that idea out.

Also, I've found that as a rationalist I have, over time, learned to apply rationality to most things that occur in life and have it give me comfort from being able to pick the things in my life that I have control over from those that I do not. The trick is to realize that you do not have control over most of what goes on around you, and that no invisible force has shown itself preeminent in that position either.

oh dear. hot dogs huh? huge fan of both wrangler pure beef hot dog and the stuff schwanns sells...

okay there are about a bazillion different versions of what one may or may not put on a hot dog..

*ducking* I like catsup, mustard (the yellow variety) minced onions and black pepper
or
stone ground horseradish mustard saur kraut and minced onioins
or
chili and cheddar and onions
...hmmm see a trend developing here...
american chee and catsup (sorry it's an Indiana thing)
or or or or geez!
ya wanna go crazy!?!?!? try carmalized onions (hmm more onions) roasted red peppers and a bit of gruyere cheese.. on a.... wheat or pumpernickel bun

*ducking and rolling under desk*

well.. geez on the serious topic..

the devil is a construct of the catholic (christian) church as a means to scare the populous into submission, which is also based on the greek god Pan, in order to win more converts they co-opted a great deal of the older religions iconography in orded to insinuate themselves with the existing 'mythology' and there by (in the greatest marketing ploy in history) associate themselves with existing traditions and events and slowly destroy those events/remove non-christian identification from them (ie. easter/halloween/christmas and there are quite a few others.

So, in my humble opinion good and evil are constructs of the human mind, the basic difference between animal desires and the overall well being of society.. respectively evil and good (duh but you knew that).

as I'm in kansas I'm not getting into the debate about creation (or rather 'intelligent design') vs. evolution. both have holes (some more than others)

Cowhead, you're totally right on with that. Soooooo many people don't realize how massive and frightening the Catholic conspiracy is regarding the devil. Not only did they see the need for a fear-based demagoguery, not only did they co-opt Pan to be their whipping boy, they also managed to swoop back in time to diasporic Hebrew writers and subliminally suggest the idea using a secret combination of stale wafers and bland “positive-pop” music.

The only part of the conspiracy that most people are aware of is the part where the Nuns can fly, but not all that other stuff. Thanks for waving the banner.

I will burn in hell.

I make a party dish called drunken dragon hot dogs, that involves cutting up a couple pounds of dogs, and cooking along with secret amounts of ketchup, jack daniels, and dragon hot sauce ...

smoothmoniker wrote:

The only part of the conspiracy that most people are aware of is the part where the Nuns can fly, but not all that other stuff. Thanks for waving the banner.

With all those nuns in street clothes today, the flying part is right out.

All philosophy can be reduced to a discussion of good versus evil. It is EVIL to eat a hot dog without relish. French fries are best with ranch dressing, and hamburgers should be eaten with A1 Sauce. Catsup is hopelessly declasse' and the term should only be used to refer to the item which comes in cans and which I eat for dinner each night. The substance should be banned along with aerosol spray cans and gun control laws.

Hot dogs should be eaten without buns, except on Fridays.

Troubleshooter wrote:

I'm thinking that you have that ass backwards.

Do you think that it may just be possible that a good portion of the abuses heaped upon people were at the behest of the leaders of said creator's church? I think that history bears that idea out.

Also, I've found that as a rationalist I have, over time, learned to apply rationality to most things that occur in life and have it give me comfort from being able to pick the things in my life that I have control over from those that I do not. The trick is to realize that you do not have control over most of what goes on around you, and that no invisible force has shown itself preeminent in that position either.

Is it absolutely necessary, to start your dialouge with deragatory comments.
If you can answer most things that occur in life, why can't you use the same perspective on all events? Are you sure you can pick out the things you have control over? I find it difficult to believe you have control over much more than your views. If you check carefully, you'll see you don't have control over emotions etc...... just the ability to act on those emotions. Be grateful you can rationalize most of what you believe. Some might even call that denial......
"No one is so wrong as the man who knows all the answers."-Thomas merton

Brown Thrasher wrote:

Is it absolutely necessary, to start your dialouge with deragatory comments.

It's not derogatory, it's a colorful metaphor, relax.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

If you can answer most things that occur in life, why can't you use the same perspective on all events?

I can't necessarily answer all of the questions that occur in life. What I can do is judge whether they are answerable or not and if they are then I answer it, but if it isn't then I put it on the back burner for further study. What I don't do is blame it on some invisible force that has no apparent causal relationship other than what someone else says is true.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

Are you sure you can pick out the things you have control over?

Generally so, yes.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

I find it difficult to believe you have control over much more than your views.

Your belief is not necessery for my validity, that's one of the purposes that religion serves, to get groups on the same page. Religion has outlived its purpose.

Also, the realization that I have control over only a small number of the things in my life and that there is no evidence that some omnipresent being controls the rest was very liberating.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

If you check carefully, you'll see you don't have control over emotions etc...... just the ability to act on those emotions.

I'll have to disagree, along with research to the contrary.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

Be grateful you can rationalize most of what you believe. Some might even call that denial......

I don't have to be grateful, it's only by the sweat of my own brow that I am able to bring thinking to bear instead of dogma and pat ideology.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

"No one is so wrong as the man who knows all the answers."-Thomas merton

I know. :cool:

[QUOTE=Schrodinger's Cat]All philosophy can be reduced to a discussion of good versus evil. It is EVIL to eat a hot dog without relish. French fries are best with ranch dressing, and hamburgers should be eaten with A1 Sauce. Catsup is hopelessly declasse' and the term should only be used to refer to the item which comes in cans and which I eat for dinner each night. The substance should be banned along with aerosol spray cans and gun control laws.[/QUOTE

To eat french fries with anything other than mayonaise could possibly start World War 1 over again..........

Troubleshooter wrote:

It's not derogatory, it's a colorful metaphor, relax.



I can't necessarily answer all of the questions that occur in life. What I can do is judge whether they are answerable or not and if they are then I answer it, but if it isn't then I put it on the back burner for further study. What I don't do is blame it on some invisible force that has no apparent causal relationship other than what someone else says is true.



Generally so, yes.



Your belief is not necessery for my validity, that's one of the purposes that religion serves, to get groups on the same page. Religion has outlived its purpose.

Also, the realization that I have control over only a small number of the things in my life and that there is no evidence that some omnipresent being controls the rest was very liberating.



I'll have to disagree, along with research to the contrary.



I don't have to be grateful, it's only by the sweat of my own brow that I am able to bring thinking to bear instead of dogma and pat ideology.



I know. :cool:

Thanks, I'm metahoricaly relaxed, but that could just be the valium.
I hope you not inferring that I am lead by some invisible force, to believe anything at all. Probably one of my biggest problems is not believing in anything, other than what can be proven wiith my own eyes. You'll have to argue your point about religion outliving it's purpose, with someone who gives a damn. I'm having a hard time understsanding how you continue to correlate my views with mainstream religion. Sir, If you consider my views dogmatic, you might want to look the word up in the dictionary. Also, ,metaphoricaly speaking, you are one of the most idealistic people, I have ever had the pleasure of speaking with........

Learning to live in such an idealistic society, within it's norms, is a miricle in itself.

From the Cellar Archives:

-----MARK-----
Post: 4784 of 4786
Subject: Re: But Editor
From: editor (bruce morgen)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 00:10:33 EST

barak (Yoshua Barak) writes:

[Much apocalypic meandering deleted]

Like I said, I never attempt reasoned discourse with a true believer. If your
ilk is what God loves and wants of humankind, I'll take my chances and give
honest negative answers to your questions, regardless of who or what poses
them. Nine out of ten humans on the planet are going to hell if you're right
and I'll stand with them.

Whenever I see a religion debate I think back to the dial-up Cellar and Barak. I think Bruce is right, everyone has to stand for his or her ideals and hope that if there is a God, he gives points for trying.

Thanks for stopping by -- call back regularly!

If you enjoyed your time here, why not let others know about...
The Cellar BBS 215-539-3043 multiple lines HST/V.32

Stunning. Absolutely stunning.

I remember a couple of years ago going through some floppies and finding some text files I'd saved ... I hope I still have them ... I believe that the Mike Smith debacle was included in that archive I had.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

I hope you not inferring that I am lead by some invisible force, to believe anything at all.

Not at all, I'm saying that that some people are forced to do so by an inability to simply say, "I don't know."

Brown Thrasher wrote:

Probably one of my biggest problems is not believing in anything, other than what can be proven wiith my own eyes.

I'm of the same mind, although I try to not become pathological about it.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

You'll have to argue your point about religion outliving it's purpose, with someone who gives a damn.

I'm having a hard time understsanding how you continue to correlate my views with mainstream religion.

It was just filler and clarification, that's all.

Brown Thrasher wrote:

Sir, If you consider my views dogmatic, you might want to look the word up in the dictionary. Also, ,metaphoricaly speaking, you are one of the most idealistic people, I have ever had the pleasure of speaking with........

Learning to live in such an idealistic society, within it's norms, is a miricle in itself.

Ideals are just goals in pretty clothing, but they are good to have.

Troubleshooter wrote:

Not at all, I'm saying that that some people are forced to do so by an inability to simply say, "I don't know."



I'm of the same mind, although I try to not become pathological about it.



It was just filler and clarification, that's all.



Ideals are just goals in pretty clothing, but they are good to have.

I don't think it's their inability to say they don't know. Ithink it is their dogmatic views that causes this, if we are talking about the same thing.
The whole point is knowone really knows when it comes to religion, creation etc......Pathological is a strong word. I will not become defensive, for I feel sure you were not implying my views were pathological. Thanks for the clarification. I think idealism, as i was referring too, is a very dangerous thing at times. I think pushing ones ideals upon another, whether another country or an individual ismuch the same as trying to convert a person to their religious views by the use of dogmatic idealism. I think our country to include myself need to try a new wardrobe for awhile.

Troubleshooter wrote:

Not at all, I'm saying that that some people are forced to do so by an inability to simply say, "I don't know."



I'm of the same mind, although I try to not become pathological about it.



It was just filler and clarification, that's all.



Ideals are just goals in pretty clothing, but they are good to have.

Ideals are nothing more than what a specific person or persons wish to believe. I thinks when goals are brought into the equation, we must decide whose precising defintion of the word goal we are looking at.

goals are, if anything, more personal than ideals. At best they are even.

Ideals are whatcha want, goals are how yah get there.

jaguar wrote:

goals are, if anything, more personal than ideals. At best they are even.

I may be wrong, but I thought ideals were views of an individual or group of individuals. I thought goals were something a person tried to reach good or bad. Just wondering........ ;)

Well....yellow mustard on an all beef frank is ideal. Its my goal to spread this belief.