maadmax 0 #101 August 13, 2008 However... the fundamental difference between our beliefs is I would acknowledge the existence of a/the god if the evidence was objectively compelling. Quote For me the existence and precision of the universe screams of a designer. That takes a lot less belief than chance occurrence. But I have noticed over the years that most people seem to decide for or against the existence of God before they have much scientific evidence either way. Whereas, I suspect no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary, your belief wouldn't change..Quote I don't know. Try me. ________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Muenkel 0 #102 August 13, 2008 Quote Edited to add: It's great how religious people think their religion is the only one that is right. No theres not room for more than one to be right. Simple logical question here: Why would anyone practice a religion they didn't believe to be the one true religion? It seems to me that if you are unsure, you should explore the many others. Only an idiot would practice a religion they didn't fully believe was the one true religion. Hopefully, no one has a gun to your head. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #103 August 14, 2008 Another argument against free will... God is omniscient (well he used to be when I went to Catechism classes)..so he knows everything, even before it's happened. So: whatever I do, he knew I was going to do it, before I did it.... So: if I don't do what he knew I was going to do, ie exercise my free will, then my behavior shows him up as being wrong... So: free will and an omniscient god are mutually exclusive - you can have one or the other, but not both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #104 August 14, 2008 Quote However... the fundamental difference between our beliefs is I would acknowledge the existence of a/the god if the evidence was objectively compelling. Quote Whereas, I suspect no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary, your belief wouldn't change..Quote I don't know. Try me. ________________________________________ OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #105 August 14, 2008 QuoteI think you missed the point of the book of Job. Job wasn't a real guy, the book was written in order to illustrate a point. Sort of like the entire Bible is all made-up, written in order to illustrate points? Is there a teachers' edition of the Bible that people like you use to be able to tell the literal parts from the figurative parts? Or are we supposed to just treat it ALL as fictional?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #106 August 14, 2008 QuoteThis is a seriously destorted view of reality, and of God. Um, the NAZIs were human beings, with free will, and the capacity to act on it, just like any human beings. Let's get real. Did it occur to you that the NAZIs used their own free will to enact their evil on the Jews & others? The question is why God didn't intervene. God is supposed to have historically intervened to trump humans' "free will" all the freakin' time! Didn't he drown the pursuers of the Jews in the Red Sea? Wasn't that thwarting their free will, which presumably was to catch the escaping Jews? QuoteThis is the problem with fundy atheists: They START with a distorted idea of God, and then discount that distorted idea. You did your share of distorting when you made it seem that God can't exercise his Godly will any time it would thwart the free-will of humans. Whatsisname did not say that God caused the deaths of the Jews in the gas chambers--we all realize that was up to the Nazis' free will. But God did not SAVE the Jews from them. Why? God clearly has used his power to rescue certain people from the murderous free will of certain others.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #107 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuote However... the fundamental difference between our beliefs is I would acknowledge the existence of a/the god if the evidence was objectively compelling. Quote Whereas, I suspect no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary, your belief wouldn't change..Quote I don't know. Try me. ________________________________________ OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DescensionX 0 #108 August 21, 2008 Magical and mystical thinking in the human mind would have much less effect on a person’s life if other humans didn’t consistently use it to their benefit. Unfortunately religious and political leaders have taken advantage of this weakness for centuries to consolidate their power. Once you can get a person to discard logic and follow based on emotion you can get them to do almost anything. Religious organizations, priests and pastors have a vested interest in perpetuating myths that maintain their influence and power. Religious organizations prey on people like a drug dealer. They prey on the young, the poor, the weak and people with unmet psychological needs. Once hooked the believer is entangled in a web of comfort and social structure that is difficult to escape. Like the addict you can't expect the believer to view their situation rationally. Their paradigm is fundamentally altered by beliefs they harbor in their minds. Religion creates an altered state similar to drugs. When somebody in church is whipped into a frenzy they attribute the physical and mental feelings to a higher being. This is planned, just like the producers of Old Yeller intend to make you cry when the dog dies at the end or the producers of Rocky intend for you to be excited when Rocky wins. Followers are puppets in a well-orchestrated routine, refined over the last few thousand years. An alcoholic will give an illogical and nonsensical justification as to why they think they do not have a problem. In their mind the benefits outweigh the problems. Similarly, a religious person will defend their religion the same way. Everybody outside the alcoholic’s world sees the contradictions. Everybody outside the religious persons world sees the contradictions. Given the right situation, both can be fixed if they are willing to step outside their situations and act based on logic rather than what feels good. Fear of the harsh realities of the world probably led both individuals into their situations, so learning to cope with these fears is essential for them to lead a happy life without negatively affecting the people around them. This is the paradox of religion. Religious people so commonly profess to be giving and selfless when their entire belief system is based on self-preservation. Religion is selfishness at its worst. Every good action in their life is motivated by the desire to please their god to ensure their own comfort and assuage their fears of the unknown. Every bad act can be blamed on some opposing evil power. People acting in the name of a higher power, which infringes on society around them, are absolved of responsibility because theirs is thought to be the righteous belief. There is absolutely no way to prove they are right but they will defend their position more vehemently than any other belief they hold. This is the definition of irrationality. This is the crux of the matter. Religions are certainly NOT benign. They are the source of much pain, misery and death in the world. I have hope for society however. Eventually we will discard these superstitions like a child discards belief in Santa Clause. To continue the drug addict analogy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are the gateway myths that lead to belief in a god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #109 August 21, 2008 OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote I will consider anything you can come up with. But keep in mind, I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity. Not religious ritual. ________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #110 August 22, 2008 Umm, your answer raises real difficulties for me... 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive. 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #111 August 22, 2008 I agree 100%.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #112 August 22, 2008 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive.*** Ya Ya 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be?*** Very interested if you have something I haven't already studied . But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #113 August 22, 2008 1) I'm sorry...I mispasted the first part of the quote from your message. Should have read: '....I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity' This is the self-contradictory statement I had trouble with. 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #114 August 23, 2008 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully*** I view scientific discoveries as simply an explanation of how God did what He did in creating the universe. Scientific truth is similar to Spiritual Truth in that they both exist and it is our responsibility and privilege to learn as much as we can about both areas of knowledge. Religion is man made and therefore flawed, Spiritual Truth if from God and is universally true. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #115 August 23, 2008 OK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree..? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #116 August 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree Science doesn't have a clue about the singularity that sparked the Big Bang, or how to rectify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, or about the Dark Matter and Energy that makes up 95% of the universe. Science can't explain the life that powers our brain. If we are just neurons and electrical activity then we could hook ourselves to an artificial heart , plug our brain into a electrical socket and live forever. Science has no use for morality, why is something right and something else wrong? Science totally lacks a purpose, if you are a chance accident of circumstances, why bother, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you return to your insignificant oblivion. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #117 August 24, 2008 Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' Just because someone (you for example) can't understand something (eg 'the life that powers our brain..') doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulties. But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'? Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail). But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it.. I didn't want to take the high moral ground, but I will....I think it's a fair bet the cigarette and arms industries have higher proportions of theists than does say, the biotech industry (biologists and physicists are famously atheistic). And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #118 August 24, 2008 --Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. *** I have no argument with your above statement. It was just that you previously said that the universe was pretty well figured out. I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." --And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' *** So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. -- But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'?*** Quite the contrary, it opens a whole new realm of possibilities. --Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail).*** The physical forces that split the atom and released the explosive energy stored in them had no morality. The scientists who were created in the spiritual image of God have access to moral thought. Morality is a quality of God not physics. --But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it..*** Thank-you, and keep up the good work. --And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife*** But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #119 August 27, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." Except that's not what I wrote.. ('er...it's true there are knowledge gaps...' was the verbiage, which means something quite different) Charitably you were careless; if I were cynical I'd accuse you of the cheap debaters trick of putting words I didn't say into my mouth... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. Not sure what you mean here....However there have been some monkey decapitation experiments (ghoulish I know) where the eyes (brain artificially supplied with glucose, oxygenated blood) respond to environment. I believe the EEG's were as normal as you might expect in such a bizarre scenario. And what do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it uniquely human? Quote ------------------------------------------------------------ Morality is a quality of God not physics. Which 'God' do you mean? The Judeo-Christian god of the Old Testament? He was a vindictive, not a moral creature....Where's the moral god? ------------------------------ Quote But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? Er, what if we won't? Why would you ever imagine you'll be around forever? Once the body's dead, you're dead, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, the Yeti or God. And I don't believe in any of them, because they're simply fabulous constructs, without any credible supporting evidence.. Dude, bottom-line is science and religion are virtually exclusive. Where reigion tries to explain natural phenomena, it fails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bjjman 0 #120 August 27, 2008 Quotescience and religion are virtually exclusive. If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #121 August 27, 2008 what he said. judging religion by its "failure to describe/explain natural phenomena" is like judging a cookbook by its failure to teach you how to fix your car. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #122 August 29, 2008 Not really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #123 August 29, 2008 Well: the Catholic church gave Galileo a hard time (threatened to kill him, actually) because he challenged the orthodoxy of the Sun going around the Earth. It's not just because religions propose ridiculous explanations to natural phenomena - that'd be fine if that's as far as it went. It's because they kill people who don't agree with them that I have time being tolerant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #124 August 29, 2008 Er...I used 'virtually' because I didn't mean 'mutually'. Just to be clear: Science and religion are virtually exclusive: in other words there's very little, if any, overlap between them. If they were mutually exclusive, then there'd be zero overlap - which I don't think is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #125 August 29, 2008 QuoteNot really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. but that's not its main purpose, although I agree some fundies try to make religion do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
Muenkel 0 #102 August 13, 2008 Quote Edited to add: It's great how religious people think their religion is the only one that is right. No theres not room for more than one to be right. Simple logical question here: Why would anyone practice a religion they didn't believe to be the one true religion? It seems to me that if you are unsure, you should explore the many others. Only an idiot would practice a religion they didn't fully believe was the one true religion. Hopefully, no one has a gun to your head. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #103 August 14, 2008 Another argument against free will... God is omniscient (well he used to be when I went to Catechism classes)..so he knows everything, even before it's happened. So: whatever I do, he knew I was going to do it, before I did it.... So: if I don't do what he knew I was going to do, ie exercise my free will, then my behavior shows him up as being wrong... So: free will and an omniscient god are mutually exclusive - you can have one or the other, but not both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #104 August 14, 2008 Quote However... the fundamental difference between our beliefs is I would acknowledge the existence of a/the god if the evidence was objectively compelling. Quote Whereas, I suspect no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary, your belief wouldn't change..Quote I don't know. Try me. ________________________________________ OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #105 August 14, 2008 QuoteI think you missed the point of the book of Job. Job wasn't a real guy, the book was written in order to illustrate a point. Sort of like the entire Bible is all made-up, written in order to illustrate points? Is there a teachers' edition of the Bible that people like you use to be able to tell the literal parts from the figurative parts? Or are we supposed to just treat it ALL as fictional?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #106 August 14, 2008 QuoteThis is a seriously destorted view of reality, and of God. Um, the NAZIs were human beings, with free will, and the capacity to act on it, just like any human beings. Let's get real. Did it occur to you that the NAZIs used their own free will to enact their evil on the Jews & others? The question is why God didn't intervene. God is supposed to have historically intervened to trump humans' "free will" all the freakin' time! Didn't he drown the pursuers of the Jews in the Red Sea? Wasn't that thwarting their free will, which presumably was to catch the escaping Jews? QuoteThis is the problem with fundy atheists: They START with a distorted idea of God, and then discount that distorted idea. You did your share of distorting when you made it seem that God can't exercise his Godly will any time it would thwart the free-will of humans. Whatsisname did not say that God caused the deaths of the Jews in the gas chambers--we all realize that was up to the Nazis' free will. But God did not SAVE the Jews from them. Why? God clearly has used his power to rescue certain people from the murderous free will of certain others.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #107 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuote However... the fundamental difference between our beliefs is I would acknowledge the existence of a/the god if the evidence was objectively compelling. Quote Whereas, I suspect no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary, your belief wouldn't change..Quote I don't know. Try me. ________________________________________ OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DescensionX 0 #108 August 21, 2008 Magical and mystical thinking in the human mind would have much less effect on a person’s life if other humans didn’t consistently use it to their benefit. Unfortunately religious and political leaders have taken advantage of this weakness for centuries to consolidate their power. Once you can get a person to discard logic and follow based on emotion you can get them to do almost anything. Religious organizations, priests and pastors have a vested interest in perpetuating myths that maintain their influence and power. Religious organizations prey on people like a drug dealer. They prey on the young, the poor, the weak and people with unmet psychological needs. Once hooked the believer is entangled in a web of comfort and social structure that is difficult to escape. Like the addict you can't expect the believer to view their situation rationally. Their paradigm is fundamentally altered by beliefs they harbor in their minds. Religion creates an altered state similar to drugs. When somebody in church is whipped into a frenzy they attribute the physical and mental feelings to a higher being. This is planned, just like the producers of Old Yeller intend to make you cry when the dog dies at the end or the producers of Rocky intend for you to be excited when Rocky wins. Followers are puppets in a well-orchestrated routine, refined over the last few thousand years. An alcoholic will give an illogical and nonsensical justification as to why they think they do not have a problem. In their mind the benefits outweigh the problems. Similarly, a religious person will defend their religion the same way. Everybody outside the alcoholic’s world sees the contradictions. Everybody outside the religious persons world sees the contradictions. Given the right situation, both can be fixed if they are willing to step outside their situations and act based on logic rather than what feels good. Fear of the harsh realities of the world probably led both individuals into their situations, so learning to cope with these fears is essential for them to lead a happy life without negatively affecting the people around them. This is the paradox of religion. Religious people so commonly profess to be giving and selfless when their entire belief system is based on self-preservation. Religion is selfishness at its worst. Every good action in their life is motivated by the desire to please their god to ensure their own comfort and assuage their fears of the unknown. Every bad act can be blamed on some opposing evil power. People acting in the name of a higher power, which infringes on society around them, are absolved of responsibility because theirs is thought to be the righteous belief. There is absolutely no way to prove they are right but they will defend their position more vehemently than any other belief they hold. This is the definition of irrationality. This is the crux of the matter. Religions are certainly NOT benign. They are the source of much pain, misery and death in the world. I have hope for society however. Eventually we will discard these superstitions like a child discards belief in Santa Clause. To continue the drug addict analogy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are the gateway myths that lead to belief in a god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #109 August 21, 2008 OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote I will consider anything you can come up with. But keep in mind, I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity. Not religious ritual. ________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #110 August 22, 2008 Umm, your answer raises real difficulties for me... 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive. 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #111 August 22, 2008 I agree 100%.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #112 August 22, 2008 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive.*** Ya Ya 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be?*** Very interested if you have something I haven't already studied . But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #113 August 22, 2008 1) I'm sorry...I mispasted the first part of the quote from your message. Should have read: '....I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity' This is the self-contradictory statement I had trouble with. 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #114 August 23, 2008 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully*** I view scientific discoveries as simply an explanation of how God did what He did in creating the universe. Scientific truth is similar to Spiritual Truth in that they both exist and it is our responsibility and privilege to learn as much as we can about both areas of knowledge. Religion is man made and therefore flawed, Spiritual Truth if from God and is universally true. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #115 August 23, 2008 OK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree..? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #116 August 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree Science doesn't have a clue about the singularity that sparked the Big Bang, or how to rectify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, or about the Dark Matter and Energy that makes up 95% of the universe. Science can't explain the life that powers our brain. If we are just neurons and electrical activity then we could hook ourselves to an artificial heart , plug our brain into a electrical socket and live forever. Science has no use for morality, why is something right and something else wrong? Science totally lacks a purpose, if you are a chance accident of circumstances, why bother, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you return to your insignificant oblivion. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #117 August 24, 2008 Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' Just because someone (you for example) can't understand something (eg 'the life that powers our brain..') doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulties. But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'? Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail). But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it.. I didn't want to take the high moral ground, but I will....I think it's a fair bet the cigarette and arms industries have higher proportions of theists than does say, the biotech industry (biologists and physicists are famously atheistic). And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #118 August 24, 2008 --Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. *** I have no argument with your above statement. It was just that you previously said that the universe was pretty well figured out. I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." --And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' *** So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. -- But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'?*** Quite the contrary, it opens a whole new realm of possibilities. --Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail).*** The physical forces that split the atom and released the explosive energy stored in them had no morality. The scientists who were created in the spiritual image of God have access to moral thought. Morality is a quality of God not physics. --But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it..*** Thank-you, and keep up the good work. --And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife*** But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #119 August 27, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." Except that's not what I wrote.. ('er...it's true there are knowledge gaps...' was the verbiage, which means something quite different) Charitably you were careless; if I were cynical I'd accuse you of the cheap debaters trick of putting words I didn't say into my mouth... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. Not sure what you mean here....However there have been some monkey decapitation experiments (ghoulish I know) where the eyes (brain artificially supplied with glucose, oxygenated blood) respond to environment. I believe the EEG's were as normal as you might expect in such a bizarre scenario. And what do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it uniquely human? Quote ------------------------------------------------------------ Morality is a quality of God not physics. Which 'God' do you mean? The Judeo-Christian god of the Old Testament? He was a vindictive, not a moral creature....Where's the moral god? ------------------------------ Quote But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? Er, what if we won't? Why would you ever imagine you'll be around forever? Once the body's dead, you're dead, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, the Yeti or God. And I don't believe in any of them, because they're simply fabulous constructs, without any credible supporting evidence.. Dude, bottom-line is science and religion are virtually exclusive. Where reigion tries to explain natural phenomena, it fails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bjjman 0 #120 August 27, 2008 Quotescience and religion are virtually exclusive. If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #121 August 27, 2008 what he said. judging religion by its "failure to describe/explain natural phenomena" is like judging a cookbook by its failure to teach you how to fix your car. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #122 August 29, 2008 Not really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #123 August 29, 2008 Well: the Catholic church gave Galileo a hard time (threatened to kill him, actually) because he challenged the orthodoxy of the Sun going around the Earth. It's not just because religions propose ridiculous explanations to natural phenomena - that'd be fine if that's as far as it went. It's because they kill people who don't agree with them that I have time being tolerant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #124 August 29, 2008 Er...I used 'virtually' because I didn't mean 'mutually'. Just to be clear: Science and religion are virtually exclusive: in other words there's very little, if any, overlap between them. If they were mutually exclusive, then there'd be zero overlap - which I don't think is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #125 August 29, 2008 QuoteNot really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. but that's not its main purpose, although I agree some fundies try to make religion do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
birdlike 0 #105 August 14, 2008 QuoteI think you missed the point of the book of Job. Job wasn't a real guy, the book was written in order to illustrate a point. Sort of like the entire Bible is all made-up, written in order to illustrate points? Is there a teachers' edition of the Bible that people like you use to be able to tell the literal parts from the figurative parts? Or are we supposed to just treat it ALL as fictional?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #106 August 14, 2008 QuoteThis is a seriously destorted view of reality, and of God. Um, the NAZIs were human beings, with free will, and the capacity to act on it, just like any human beings. Let's get real. Did it occur to you that the NAZIs used their own free will to enact their evil on the Jews & others? The question is why God didn't intervene. God is supposed to have historically intervened to trump humans' "free will" all the freakin' time! Didn't he drown the pursuers of the Jews in the Red Sea? Wasn't that thwarting their free will, which presumably was to catch the escaping Jews? QuoteThis is the problem with fundy atheists: They START with a distorted idea of God, and then discount that distorted idea. You did your share of distorting when you made it seem that God can't exercise his Godly will any time it would thwart the free-will of humans. Whatsisname did not say that God caused the deaths of the Jews in the gas chambers--we all realize that was up to the Nazis' free will. But God did not SAVE the Jews from them. Why? God clearly has used his power to rescue certain people from the murderous free will of certain others.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #107 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuote However... the fundamental difference between our beliefs is I would acknowledge the existence of a/the god if the evidence was objectively compelling. Quote Whereas, I suspect no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary, your belief wouldn't change..Quote I don't know. Try me. ________________________________________ OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DescensionX 0 #108 August 21, 2008 Magical and mystical thinking in the human mind would have much less effect on a person’s life if other humans didn’t consistently use it to their benefit. Unfortunately religious and political leaders have taken advantage of this weakness for centuries to consolidate their power. Once you can get a person to discard logic and follow based on emotion you can get them to do almost anything. Religious organizations, priests and pastors have a vested interest in perpetuating myths that maintain their influence and power. Religious organizations prey on people like a drug dealer. They prey on the young, the poor, the weak and people with unmet psychological needs. Once hooked the believer is entangled in a web of comfort and social structure that is difficult to escape. Like the addict you can't expect the believer to view their situation rationally. Their paradigm is fundamentally altered by beliefs they harbor in their minds. Religion creates an altered state similar to drugs. When somebody in church is whipped into a frenzy they attribute the physical and mental feelings to a higher being. This is planned, just like the producers of Old Yeller intend to make you cry when the dog dies at the end or the producers of Rocky intend for you to be excited when Rocky wins. Followers are puppets in a well-orchestrated routine, refined over the last few thousand years. An alcoholic will give an illogical and nonsensical justification as to why they think they do not have a problem. In their mind the benefits outweigh the problems. Similarly, a religious person will defend their religion the same way. Everybody outside the alcoholic’s world sees the contradictions. Everybody outside the religious persons world sees the contradictions. Given the right situation, both can be fixed if they are willing to step outside their situations and act based on logic rather than what feels good. Fear of the harsh realities of the world probably led both individuals into their situations, so learning to cope with these fears is essential for them to lead a happy life without negatively affecting the people around them. This is the paradox of religion. Religious people so commonly profess to be giving and selfless when their entire belief system is based on self-preservation. Religion is selfishness at its worst. Every good action in their life is motivated by the desire to please their god to ensure their own comfort and assuage their fears of the unknown. Every bad act can be blamed on some opposing evil power. People acting in the name of a higher power, which infringes on society around them, are absolved of responsibility because theirs is thought to be the righteous belief. There is absolutely no way to prove they are right but they will defend their position more vehemently than any other belief they hold. This is the definition of irrationality. This is the crux of the matter. Religions are certainly NOT benign. They are the source of much pain, misery and death in the world. I have hope for society however. Eventually we will discard these superstitions like a child discards belief in Santa Clause. To continue the drug addict analogy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are the gateway myths that lead to belief in a god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #109 August 21, 2008 OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote I will consider anything you can come up with. But keep in mind, I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity. Not religious ritual. ________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #110 August 22, 2008 Umm, your answer raises real difficulties for me... 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive. 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #111 August 22, 2008 I agree 100%.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #112 August 22, 2008 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive.*** Ya Ya 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be?*** Very interested if you have something I haven't already studied . But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #113 August 22, 2008 1) I'm sorry...I mispasted the first part of the quote from your message. Should have read: '....I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity' This is the self-contradictory statement I had trouble with. 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #114 August 23, 2008 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully*** I view scientific discoveries as simply an explanation of how God did what He did in creating the universe. Scientific truth is similar to Spiritual Truth in that they both exist and it is our responsibility and privilege to learn as much as we can about both areas of knowledge. Religion is man made and therefore flawed, Spiritual Truth if from God and is universally true. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #115 August 23, 2008 OK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree..? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #116 August 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree Science doesn't have a clue about the singularity that sparked the Big Bang, or how to rectify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, or about the Dark Matter and Energy that makes up 95% of the universe. Science can't explain the life that powers our brain. If we are just neurons and electrical activity then we could hook ourselves to an artificial heart , plug our brain into a electrical socket and live forever. Science has no use for morality, why is something right and something else wrong? Science totally lacks a purpose, if you are a chance accident of circumstances, why bother, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you return to your insignificant oblivion. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #117 August 24, 2008 Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' Just because someone (you for example) can't understand something (eg 'the life that powers our brain..') doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulties. But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'? Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail). But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it.. I didn't want to take the high moral ground, but I will....I think it's a fair bet the cigarette and arms industries have higher proportions of theists than does say, the biotech industry (biologists and physicists are famously atheistic). And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #118 August 24, 2008 --Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. *** I have no argument with your above statement. It was just that you previously said that the universe was pretty well figured out. I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." --And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' *** So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. -- But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'?*** Quite the contrary, it opens a whole new realm of possibilities. --Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail).*** The physical forces that split the atom and released the explosive energy stored in them had no morality. The scientists who were created in the spiritual image of God have access to moral thought. Morality is a quality of God not physics. --But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it..*** Thank-you, and keep up the good work. --And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife*** But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #119 August 27, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." Except that's not what I wrote.. ('er...it's true there are knowledge gaps...' was the verbiage, which means something quite different) Charitably you were careless; if I were cynical I'd accuse you of the cheap debaters trick of putting words I didn't say into my mouth... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. Not sure what you mean here....However there have been some monkey decapitation experiments (ghoulish I know) where the eyes (brain artificially supplied with glucose, oxygenated blood) respond to environment. I believe the EEG's were as normal as you might expect in such a bizarre scenario. And what do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it uniquely human? Quote ------------------------------------------------------------ Morality is a quality of God not physics. Which 'God' do you mean? The Judeo-Christian god of the Old Testament? He was a vindictive, not a moral creature....Where's the moral god? ------------------------------ Quote But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? Er, what if we won't? Why would you ever imagine you'll be around forever? Once the body's dead, you're dead, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, the Yeti or God. And I don't believe in any of them, because they're simply fabulous constructs, without any credible supporting evidence.. Dude, bottom-line is science and religion are virtually exclusive. Where reigion tries to explain natural phenomena, it fails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bjjman 0 #120 August 27, 2008 Quotescience and religion are virtually exclusive. If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #121 August 27, 2008 what he said. judging religion by its "failure to describe/explain natural phenomena" is like judging a cookbook by its failure to teach you how to fix your car. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #122 August 29, 2008 Not really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #123 August 29, 2008 Well: the Catholic church gave Galileo a hard time (threatened to kill him, actually) because he challenged the orthodoxy of the Sun going around the Earth. It's not just because religions propose ridiculous explanations to natural phenomena - that'd be fine if that's as far as it went. It's because they kill people who don't agree with them that I have time being tolerant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #124 August 29, 2008 Er...I used 'virtually' because I didn't mean 'mutually'. Just to be clear: Science and religion are virtually exclusive: in other words there's very little, if any, overlap between them. If they were mutually exclusive, then there'd be zero overlap - which I don't think is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #125 August 29, 2008 QuoteNot really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. but that's not its main purpose, although I agree some fundies try to make religion do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DescensionX 0 #108 August 21, 2008 Magical and mystical thinking in the human mind would have much less effect on a person’s life if other humans didn’t consistently use it to their benefit. Unfortunately religious and political leaders have taken advantage of this weakness for centuries to consolidate their power. Once you can get a person to discard logic and follow based on emotion you can get them to do almost anything. Religious organizations, priests and pastors have a vested interest in perpetuating myths that maintain their influence and power. Religious organizations prey on people like a drug dealer. They prey on the young, the poor, the weak and people with unmet psychological needs. Once hooked the believer is entangled in a web of comfort and social structure that is difficult to escape. Like the addict you can't expect the believer to view their situation rationally. Their paradigm is fundamentally altered by beliefs they harbor in their minds. Religion creates an altered state similar to drugs. When somebody in church is whipped into a frenzy they attribute the physical and mental feelings to a higher being. This is planned, just like the producers of Old Yeller intend to make you cry when the dog dies at the end or the producers of Rocky intend for you to be excited when Rocky wins. Followers are puppets in a well-orchestrated routine, refined over the last few thousand years. An alcoholic will give an illogical and nonsensical justification as to why they think they do not have a problem. In their mind the benefits outweigh the problems. Similarly, a religious person will defend their religion the same way. Everybody outside the alcoholic’s world sees the contradictions. Everybody outside the religious persons world sees the contradictions. Given the right situation, both can be fixed if they are willing to step outside their situations and act based on logic rather than what feels good. Fear of the harsh realities of the world probably led both individuals into their situations, so learning to cope with these fears is essential for them to lead a happy life without negatively affecting the people around them. This is the paradox of religion. Religious people so commonly profess to be giving and selfless when their entire belief system is based on self-preservation. Religion is selfishness at its worst. Every good action in their life is motivated by the desire to please their god to ensure their own comfort and assuage their fears of the unknown. Every bad act can be blamed on some opposing evil power. People acting in the name of a higher power, which infringes on society around them, are absolved of responsibility because theirs is thought to be the righteous belief. There is absolutely no way to prove they are right but they will defend their position more vehemently than any other belief they hold. This is the definition of irrationality. This is the crux of the matter. Religions are certainly NOT benign. They are the source of much pain, misery and death in the world. I have hope for society however. Eventually we will discard these superstitions like a child discards belief in Santa Clause. To continue the drug addict analogy, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are the gateway myths that lead to belief in a god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #109 August 21, 2008 OK...but first tell me: 1) What would it take, from an evidence perspective, to convince you? What type and quality of evidence would be needed? Er...Maadmax - I'm still waiting.... Quote I will consider anything you can come up with. But keep in mind, I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity. Not religious ritual. ________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #110 August 22, 2008 Umm, your answer raises real difficulties for me... 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive. 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #112 August 22, 2008 1) "...My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity" If you don't find this statement self-contradictory, then it's going to be hard for me to present a logical argument you'd find persuasive.*** Ya Ya 2) "I will consider anything you can come up with." I'm sure you would. But what I'd need to know is what sort of evidence would be persuasive? For example..if 'Nature' or 'Science' published a series of papers, comprehensively backed up with data, that explained conclusively how the universe came about, without any need for a supernatural being, what would your response be?*** Very interested if you have something I haven't already studied . But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #113 August 22, 2008 1) I'm sorry...I mispasted the first part of the quote from your message. Should have read: '....I have no use for religion or religious teachings. My belief is based on the Spiritual teaching of Christianity' This is the self-contradictory statement I had trouble with. 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #114 August 23, 2008 2) So what exactly is the 'Creators method of creation..' alluded to in 'But please don't confuse the Creators method of creation with proof there is no Creator.'? This is maybe something we could grapple with meaningfully*** I view scientific discoveries as simply an explanation of how God did what He did in creating the universe. Scientific truth is similar to Spiritual Truth in that they both exist and it is our responsibility and privilege to learn as much as we can about both areas of knowledge. Religion is man made and therefore flawed, Spiritual Truth if from God and is universally true. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #115 August 23, 2008 OK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree..? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #116 August 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK...but I think the trouble is current science can pretty much explain the origin of the universe, without resorting to any supernatural intervention, ie God. Scientific 'truth' (as you call it) and religious truth are not similar - one is driven (and modified) by objective evidence, the other is based on belief, that (usually) is totally subjective, and not modified by new evidence... I think we should maybe just agree to disagree Science doesn't have a clue about the singularity that sparked the Big Bang, or how to rectify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, or about the Dark Matter and Energy that makes up 95% of the universe. Science can't explain the life that powers our brain. If we are just neurons and electrical activity then we could hook ourselves to an artificial heart , plug our brain into a electrical socket and live forever. Science has no use for morality, why is something right and something else wrong? Science totally lacks a purpose, if you are a chance accident of circumstances, why bother, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you return to your insignificant oblivion. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #117 August 24, 2008 Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' Just because someone (you for example) can't understand something (eg 'the life that powers our brain..') doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulties. But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'? Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail). But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it.. I didn't want to take the high moral ground, but I will....I think it's a fair bet the cigarette and arms industries have higher proportions of theists than does say, the biotech industry (biologists and physicists are famously atheistic). And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #118 August 24, 2008 --Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. *** I have no argument with your above statement. It was just that you previously said that the universe was pretty well figured out. I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." --And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' *** So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. -- But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'?*** Quite the contrary, it opens a whole new realm of possibilities. --Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail).*** The physical forces that split the atom and released the explosive energy stored in them had no morality. The scientists who were created in the spiritual image of God have access to moral thought. Morality is a quality of God not physics. --But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it..*** Thank-you, and keep up the good work. --And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife*** But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #119 August 27, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." Except that's not what I wrote.. ('er...it's true there are knowledge gaps...' was the verbiage, which means something quite different) Charitably you were careless; if I were cynical I'd accuse you of the cheap debaters trick of putting words I didn't say into my mouth... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. Not sure what you mean here....However there have been some monkey decapitation experiments (ghoulish I know) where the eyes (brain artificially supplied with glucose, oxygenated blood) respond to environment. I believe the EEG's were as normal as you might expect in such a bizarre scenario. And what do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it uniquely human? Quote ------------------------------------------------------------ Morality is a quality of God not physics. Which 'God' do you mean? The Judeo-Christian god of the Old Testament? He was a vindictive, not a moral creature....Where's the moral god? ------------------------------ Quote But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? Er, what if we won't? Why would you ever imagine you'll be around forever? Once the body's dead, you're dead, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, the Yeti or God. And I don't believe in any of them, because they're simply fabulous constructs, without any credible supporting evidence.. Dude, bottom-line is science and religion are virtually exclusive. Where reigion tries to explain natural phenomena, it fails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bjjman 0 #120 August 27, 2008 Quotescience and religion are virtually exclusive. If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #121 August 27, 2008 what he said. judging religion by its "failure to describe/explain natural phenomena" is like judging a cookbook by its failure to teach you how to fix your car. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #122 August 29, 2008 Not really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #123 August 29, 2008 Well: the Catholic church gave Galileo a hard time (threatened to kill him, actually) because he challenged the orthodoxy of the Sun going around the Earth. It's not just because religions propose ridiculous explanations to natural phenomena - that'd be fine if that's as far as it went. It's because they kill people who don't agree with them that I have time being tolerant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #124 August 29, 2008 Er...I used 'virtually' because I didn't mean 'mutually'. Just to be clear: Science and religion are virtually exclusive: in other words there's very little, if any, overlap between them. If they were mutually exclusive, then there'd be zero overlap - which I don't think is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #125 August 29, 2008 QuoteNot really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. but that's not its main purpose, although I agree some fundies try to make religion do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Nigel 0 #117 August 24, 2008 Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' Just because someone (you for example) can't understand something (eg 'the life that powers our brain..') doesn't mean everyone else has the same difficulties. But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'? Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail). But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it.. I didn't want to take the high moral ground, but I will....I think it's a fair bet the cigarette and arms industries have higher proportions of theists than does say, the biotech industry (biologists and physicists are famously atheistic). And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #118 August 24, 2008 --Er...it's true that there are knowledge gaps but that's OK ('Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite' as my old prof used to say - there's always something more you don't know). We wouldn't even know there was 'Dark Matter' without physics or cosmology. *** I have no argument with your above statement. It was just that you previously said that the universe was pretty well figured out. I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." --And actually, biology does a pretty good job of explaining '...the life that powers our brain...' *** So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. -- But it's a mistake to invent a God to fill the knowledge gaps, it (the God hypothesis) doesn't explain anything, just moves the ignorance one step further back. Why not just say, for the moment, 'I don't know...'?*** Quite the contrary, it opens a whole new realm of possibilities. --Science has no morality? Just not true: Openheimer was tortured during (and after) the development of the Bomb - as was Einstein. Certainly, most of the engineers and biologists in my industry believe they're making a difference (OK - maybe only a very small one, and most of the time we fail).*** The physical forces that split the atom and released the explosive energy stored in them had no morality. The scientists who were created in the spiritual image of God have access to moral thought. Morality is a quality of God not physics. --But very occasionally a new vaccine or drug or a more fuel efficient technology emerges - and I'm proud to have been associated with those (depressingly usually younger and brighter than me!) who did it..*** Thank-you, and keep up the good work. --And what's wrong with returning to the oblivion from whence we came? This life, our families, friends - and even strangers on the other side of the globe or the next generation matter much more if there's no eternal (God forbid!) afterlife*** But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #119 August 27, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... I like your latter statement better "er, no its not." Except that's not what I wrote.. ('er...it's true there are knowledge gaps...' was the verbiage, which means something quite different) Charitably you were careless; if I were cynical I'd accuse you of the cheap debaters trick of putting words I didn't say into my mouth... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So then why is it when electrical impulses are passed down neurons outside of a host, no self-consciousness occurs as in a living being. Not sure what you mean here....However there have been some monkey decapitation experiments (ghoulish I know) where the eyes (brain artificially supplied with glucose, oxygenated blood) respond to environment. I believe the EEG's were as normal as you might expect in such a bizarre scenario. And what do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it uniquely human? Quote ------------------------------------------------------------ Morality is a quality of God not physics. Which 'God' do you mean? The Judeo-Christian god of the Old Testament? He was a vindictive, not a moral creature....Where's the moral god? ------------------------------ Quote But what if like matter and energy we will never be destroyed, what if we will be around for ever? Er, what if we won't? Why would you ever imagine you'll be around forever? Once the body's dead, you're dead, I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, UFO's, the Yeti or God. And I don't believe in any of them, because they're simply fabulous constructs, without any credible supporting evidence.. Dude, bottom-line is science and religion are virtually exclusive. Where reigion tries to explain natural phenomena, it fails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bjjman 0 #120 August 27, 2008 Quotescience and religion are virtually exclusive. If by that you mean mutually exclusive, you are dead wrong. I haven't read this whole thread, but the two exist to answer different questions. One does not negate the other."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #121 August 27, 2008 what he said. judging religion by its "failure to describe/explain natural phenomena" is like judging a cookbook by its failure to teach you how to fix your car. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #122 August 29, 2008 Not really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #123 August 29, 2008 Well: the Catholic church gave Galileo a hard time (threatened to kill him, actually) because he challenged the orthodoxy of the Sun going around the Earth. It's not just because religions propose ridiculous explanations to natural phenomena - that'd be fine if that's as far as it went. It's because they kill people who don't agree with them that I have time being tolerant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #124 August 29, 2008 Er...I used 'virtually' because I didn't mean 'mutually'. Just to be clear: Science and religion are virtually exclusive: in other words there's very little, if any, overlap between them. If they were mutually exclusive, then there'd be zero overlap - which I don't think is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #125 August 29, 2008 QuoteNot really. Most religions make a half-baked (to continue the cook book analogy) attempt to explain our origins (a natural phenomenon) they fail (see Genesis for some truly silly stuff) because the explanation is simply wrong. but that's not its main purpose, although I agree some fundies try to make religion do that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
