Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why do you believe what you believe?

Why do you believe what you believe? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
You feel creation is invisible? lpkmckenna may say I am just repeating what Paul said, but I have seen God through creation (just as every person who has ever lived, according to Paul ) and chosen to worship God because of creation. All of creation is his, and it reveals his power.
Creation? Depends on what you mean. Man made creation? Nature? Life?
I see math and physics in 'creation'. I see a chance to learn and chance to understand. I see beauty and feel appreciation. I want to preserve the beauty of nature and creation.

Don't see God/Gods/Goddesses/Devil/Demons/Ghost/Invisible Beings in those creation.


Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Very detailed, and creative, but very wrong as well. I have never suffered from depression and neither does my father or brother (well, they never revealed it in the 40 years I have known them). My conversion came during one of the higher upbeat moments of my life (well, to be honest, my whole life has been pretty darn amazing and upbeat.)

God saved me from a life of living only for myself. I have died to self. Hedonism has been removed from my desires by God.

Here's what I said earlier in this thread about why I am not an alcoholic:

Note, I mentioned hedonism. Alcohol just happened to be something they ended up being addicted to as a result of their hedonism. No other members of my family, up or down the family tree or out the branches, has this issue. My mom has probably drank a total of 30 drinks in her 60+ years on the planet. No "genetic" depressions here either. We are not the glass-is-half-full kind of people, we are the glass-is-full-and-runneth-over kind of people. I like how Chris Rice sings it: "Life gave me lemonade and I can't imagine why, Born on a sunny day, beneath a tangerine sky".
By hedonism, do you mean promiscuous sex?

Some people fill their emptiness with alcohol, some with drugs, and some with sex. Some fill their emptiness with God and religion.

God saving them from alcohol, drugs, and promiscuity is a common recurring theme at Church rallies. Been to quite a number of them.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
By hedonism, do you mean promiscuous sex?

Some people fill their emptiness with alcohol, some with drugs, and some with sex. Some fill their emptiness with God and religion.

God saving them from alcohol, drugs, and promiscuity is a common recurring theme at Church rallies. Been to quite a number of them.
I find it interesting how God is used as a "crutch" to keep some on the straight and narrow yet some feel government, regulation is a bad thing.

Kinda funny really.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 06:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
That. Is. Not. Evolution. Period.
Just more proof that religion isn't needed to believe crazy, wrong, absurd things.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Creation? Depends on what you mean. Man made creation? Nature? Life?
I see math and physics in 'creation'. I see a chance to learn and chance to understand. I see beauty and feel appreciation. I want to preserve the beauty of nature and creation.

Don't see God/Gods/Goddesses/Devil/Demons/Ghost/Invisible Beings in those creation.
ALL of creation that I have seen.

Here is the relevant scripture:
Romans 1:19-23
"19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
By hedonism, do you mean promiscuous sex?
Nope. Hedonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - "Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain)."
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Some people fill their emptiness with alcohol, some with drugs, and some with sex. Some fill their emptiness with God and religion.
Not in this case. See above wiki entry definition.
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
God saving them from alcohol, drugs, and promiscuity is a common recurring theme at Church rallies. Been to quite a number of them.
That is your experience, but not the case with me or my family.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't need to ask for forgiveness because when I die, like all organic matter I rot away and become one with nature again as in the most basic of atoms and elements to be recycled again in something else, a plant, a insect, food for a animal that becomes food for a human. There is no after life. We are a biochemical machine, a constant biochemical reaction and death is just the ending the biochemical reaction. Just a more complexed evolved but natural system. Your here one minute hard coded to breed to pass on your biochemical make up and then your gone. Success comes from the continuation of your biochemical make up through offspring. Failure is never reproducing.
No need to repeat myself.
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Life is remarkably simple when you remove the faith and look only at the mechanical side of it.
Life is remarkably simple when you have faith.
1. Love God, obey him, and accept his grace.
2. Be as cool to others as you want them to be cool to you.
3. Live your life with gratitude of the grace that has been given to you.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
No need to repeat myself.

Life is remarkably simple when you have faith.
1. Love God, obey him, and accept his grace.
2. Be as cool to others as you want them to be cool to you.
3. Live your life with gratitude of the grace that has been given to you.

But the following produces the dame results.
1. Be as cool to others as you want them to be cool to you.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
No need to repeat myself.

Life is remarkably simple when you have faith.
1. Love God, obey him, and accept his grace.
2. Be as cool to others as you want them to be cool to you.
3. Live your life with gratitude of the grace that has been given to you.
You know I might actually like Religious people more if the majority of them actually lived like that.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Let me put this into perspective: Thats like saying "there's no scientific evidence to prove pesticides cause cancer, therefore there is no reason to believe they do". The part in bold is logically correct statement, just like the 1st part of your statement is correct; But this would be a false conclusion because the reality is there is scientific evidence to suggest (not prove) some pesticides can cause cancer. You see there doesn't need to be evidence that proves something in order for it to possibly be true.
I'll absolutely concede to this point. I should have said there was no scientific evidence to suggest the existence of God.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
People who commit the atrocities I outlined obviously aren't very god fearing. I highly doubt the Hispanic gangs have read even 15 pages of the bible, or attend church. Simply believing in a god doesn't constitute a believer in my opinion, it's just a form of agnosticism.
I'm not sure committing atrocities means some is obviously not god fearing.
I'm with you on the rest of this paragraph though.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
There might be a few heads being chopped off here and there with muslims. But with my study of history combined with life experiences atheism has brought incomparable tragedy. Atheism brought us communism which made quick work of over a hundred million people. From the communists themselves, the reason they did it was to irradiate religion; since the moral system was incompatible with their beliefs. People can say "crusades" "crusades!" but none of that compares; crusades didn't have mass graves. Big atheism even made the holocaust look like childs play. And that's not the only example.
This of course is a familiar argument. I don't see that communism is a direct result of atheism. As I understand it the intent was to eradicate any organisation that might have progressed to threaten the regime. Many simply happened to be religions.


Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
So when an atheist says "morals are innate we all agree that murder and rape is wrong" I think the burden of proof is on them. People aren't giving credit were credit is due. The organized religions as much as you may hate them, gave you the idea of morals; and if your agnostic... they gave you idea of god in general. Its not something you'd just come up with on your own.
Native Americans had their own theology. Most tribes do to this day.
Did the organised religions invent morality? I'm not sure thats one I can agree with. They might deserve some credit for popularising it but I don't think they can take the credit for inventing it.



Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I don't think wolves/lions/dolphins co-opertae to hunt out of altruism. Its really their best chance for their own survival. Once they get the prey, it's every wolf for himself, if one doesn't get to eat that's too bad. Elephants won't guard the baby of another parade/herd; they dont empathy for one they dont know. And even if a baby of their own herd gets injured or stuck in a mud hole only the parents will help it.
I don't believe its actually altruism, but to me it certainly looks like a potential foundation for it. It certainly evolved within tribes as you mentioned. I think you get to a certain level of intelligence and sooner or later people start to put themselves in the shoes of others. This is quite a big leap intellectually and many to this day still fail utterly to make it at all. 'Do unto others..." may be the most famous version but its simply logical. If everybody treats everybody else as they would prefer to be treated, then people don't get murdered or raped or robbed. However morality came into existence, it is certainly not necessary to believe in a god to possess it. It does have to be taught somehow however.



Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Let me expound just for fun.
If aliens had kidnapped you and hyteckit when you were babies and put you on a planet just like earth by yourselves as an experiment; it is doubtful that in your entire lifetime; and with all your hyper-intellectual mental capacity combined you would ever conceive something as simple as the wheel. Think about it.

All you guys look around and are so proud of humans accomplishments yet don't see the big picture. Humans have one unique adaptation. The ability to copy the inventions of the few smart people, and make slight improvements. Even with all the millions of people in native US America... None came up with the wheel. The wheel is something just a few of the smartest people in the world came up with... by chance from time to time... and others copies it. Don't overestimate human mental capacity.
Its very difficult to imagine how hard it would be to invent a wheel having never seen one. (Obviously) This is why I marvel at human ingenuity, because sometimes it takes billions of us in order to find one who can come up with this stuff. I personally believe there would be more of those genii without the efforts of various churches. This is a big part of my problems with some of them.
Humanity has come a long way despite the setbacks.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
You have seen evolution on [V]ideo? Really, documented evidence about evolution?

That. Is. Not. Evolution. Period.
Actually if you 'believe' in the nuts and bolts of genetics and reproduction, evolution pretty much 'falls out of the maths' of that system or any similar system.

‪Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker‬‏ - YouTube
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Who knows maybe some day we will invent a time machine and be able to go back to the first person who wrote the first stories of the bible and find he was just a very creative story teller, nothing more then a screen play writer and all those people that lived by the story will feel silly or we find a world developed as the bible says it was and the rest of us feel silly and quickly pray for forgiveness.
From Red Dwarf:

"Historians today found what they believe to be a missing page of the bible. The page is believed to be from the beginning of the bible and reads:

To my darling Candy.

All characters and events portrayed within this volume are fictitious and any resemblance to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental"
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Dropping of the word hypothetical is a hypothetical. Don't you give any more weight to the real world than to the hypothetical one?
Yep.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. You insist people agree with you, in an abusive way. Abuse towards ideas counts.

Of course, accusing believers of "mental illness, brain damage, drug use, psychological disorders, fatigue, and deception," with no evidence btw, pretty much constitutes verbal abuse of the people themselves, now that you draw the distinction.
I insist that people defend ideas which are foolish or demonstrably incorrect and I certainly don't do so by stating that I am making any demands of anyone. If you believe something I consider stupid, I'm going to tell you and as best I can explain why its stupid. If you can't counter my assertion then why wouldn't you agree with me?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
FYI, this thread sounds just like Salty's pre-coming-out threads. Just sayin'
So lets get something straight. You are angry with with me for getting angry with people who don't agree with me (which is obviously something you don't agree with) and now having gone round in circles and contradicted yourself on pretty much every point at least once during your trolling of this thread you are resorting to calling me gay?

Bravo.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Clearly not. There is no evidence on either side, you said so a dozen times, but you've still dug your heels in over it. So what exactly makes you so certain that disagreement actually irritates you?
I can tell because I'm irritated. Of course that only applies given my answer to your question about assigning value to the real world. If I were to consider your later post about how its wrong to trust human experience, then I can tell because I appear to be imagining that I'm irritated. Maybe.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're not just assuming it, you're proselytizing it. The problem isn't that you have an assumption, it's that you badger anyone who doesn't share the same assumption.
Show me the badgering. Once more with feeling, if you give me a good reason to doubt my assumption, then I will. If you can't then why shouldn't you agree with it too?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's not logical at all, you're just turning in circles. To reiterate, all you did was decide what you want the null hypothesis to be, then fail to gather any evidence, and declare the null hypothesis correct. The logical and reasonable answer any time you have no evidence at all, is that you don't know, even if you have suspicions. That's what people who are able to gauge degree of certainty do.
So now you're saying that the absence of god is not even a reasonable candidate for the null hypothesis in this case? Good grief.

I'll try again:

Is there a god?

(Popular) Answers in order of likelihood that they are correct:

1. No. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that god exists.
2. Yes. The wonder of the observable universe combined with gaps in our knowledge and ability to comprehend implies that there is a greater intelligence at work.
3. Yes. Holy text(s) and various disciples, profits and believers provide evidence that xxxx established religion is the one true religion.

I can't quantify the un/certainty absolutely but I can do so relatively.
You keep asserting that it is illogical to draw conclusion number one rather than just refusing to draw a conclusion. If option 3 were to turn out to be true and you had gone with one of the other options or the wrong established religion or refused to decide either way, then you might be living your life all wrong and the one true deity might decide to punish you when you die. If not before.
If option 1 or 2 turn out to be true and you had been following an established religion, you would might have wasted a lot of time, energy and/or money following your choice of religion and even worse you might have encouraged or taught others to wrongly do the same with their short time on Earth.
This is why there is a perfectly argument for making a decision one way or the other rather than just deciding not to bother making your mind up at all.

You also question that option 1 is actually the most likely answer and therefore the most logical conclusion to draw. This depends on how you consider the evidence for the other two. I personally consider it to be scientifically irrelevant, or at least easily refutable with more likely explanations. If you want to go into that debate, we can but please lets drop the flitting back and forth between logic and philosophy and metaphysics and whether or not one or the other of us is just imagining the entire universe and stick to what we may as well assume to be the science.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Don't you give any more weight to the real world than to the hypothetical one?
Yep.
Then by countering a real world observation with a hypothetical one, you are admitting being wrong? Or you're hoping no one notices?

I insist that people defend ideas which are foolish or demonstrably incorrect and I certainly don't do so by stating that I am making any demands of anyone. If you believe something I consider stupid, I'm going to tell you and as best I can explain why its stupid. If you can't counter my assertion then why wouldn't you agree with me?
You tell me. I'll give you the chance to play the part of "foolish and incorrect" later in this post, and then you can explain why you wouldn't agree with me.

So lets get something straight. You are angry with with me...
Not at all. I enjoy the challenge of the puzzle that is language. It's like a jigsaw.

you are resorting to calling me gay?
No, I'm drawing a comparison between the most outspoken homophobes who turn out to be gay, and most aggressive Christophobes who turn out to be believers. Salty's unprovoked "why the f would anyone be gay" thread is eerily similar to your unprovoked "why the f would anyone be religious" thread. We'll see if you're a born-again Christian in a year from now

I can tell because I'm irritated. Of course that only applies given my answer to your question about assigning value to the real world. If I were to consider your later post about how its wrong to trust human experience, then I can tell because I appear to be imagining that I'm irritated. Maybe.
I can see where I worded that ambiguously. I mean "certainty" to apply to your opinion that has no evidence, and "irritation" to apply to how much certainty. I'll start again:

How certain should I be in calling "heads" on a fair coin toss? Should I become irritated if someone else calls tails? That's what you're doing. Why are you so sure, even though you have no evidence?


So now you're saying that the absence of god is not even a reasonable candidate for the null hypothesis in this case? Good grief.
No, it's perfectly fine. But when you have no evidence, it can't tell you anything! Having NO EVIDENCE is the key observation here, not what hypothesis is what. Really it doesn't matter what the hypothesis is if you have no evidence, because you can't draw any conclusions with no evidence!

Any time you have no evidence, you can't conclude anything besides your presumptions from before you started. All you're measuring is your presumptions, because the only other thing you could measure would be evidence, and you have none of that.

Hopefully I said the phrase "no evidence" enough times for you to realize that it is the point.

NO EVIDENCE.





Is there a god?

(Popular) Answers in order of likelihood that they are correct:

1. No. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that god exists.
2. Yes. The wonder of the observable universe combined with gaps in our knowledge and ability to comprehend implies that there is a greater intelligence at work.
3. Yes. Holy text(s) and various disciples, profits and believers provide evidence that xxxx established religion is the one true religion.

I can't quantify the un/certainty absolutely but I can do so relatively.
Pre-supposing your conclusion: "Given the premise that I'm right... I'm right!"

What will the outcome of a fair coin toss be? Answers in order of likelihood that they are correct:
1. Heads.
2. Tails.
Given no evidence, we have no choice but to conclude the answer is definitely heads.

--------------
Now, as promised, here's your chance to explain why you wouldn't agree with me. I've just simply and elegantly demonstrated that your logical sequence is completely unfounded. Why wouldn't you agree?

You keep asserting that it is illogical to draw conclusion number one rather than just refusing to draw a conclusion. If option 3 were to turn out to be true and you had gone with one of the other options or the wrong established religion or refused to decide either way, then you might be living your life all wrong and the one true deity might decide to punish you when you die. If not before.
If option 1 or 2 turn out to be true and you had been following an established religion, you would might have wasted a lot of time, energy and/or money following your choice of religion and even worse you might have encouraged or taught others to wrongly do the same with their short time on Earth.
This is why there is a perfectly argument for making a decision one way or the other rather than just deciding not to bother making your mind up at all.
ANY conclusion is logical, because you have NO EVIDENCE. What's illogical is calling the other conclusions "foolish and demonstrably false." Obviously nothing is demonstrably false when there is NO EVIDENCE.

Again it's just like a coin toss. Heads might win or tails might win, but saying "I don't know" definitely will NOT win. But the truth is you actually don't know, and calling heads is just a gamble, when you have NO EVIDENCE, and calling someone "foolish and demonstrably false" just for calling tails is stupid, when you have no evidence.

Of course, things would be different if you had some evidence

You also question that option 1 is actually the most likely answer and therefore the most logical conclusion to draw. This depends on how you consider the evidence for the other two. I personally consider it to be scientifically irrelevant, or at least easily refutable with more likely explanations. If you want to go into that debate, we can but please lets drop the flitting back and forth between logic and philosophy and metaphysics and whether or not one or the other of us is just imagining the entire universe and stick to what we may as well assume to be the science.
The science is irrelevant when there is NO EVIDENCE. Consider this diagram:

{---- philosophy and metaphysicis ----- [ --- science --- ] ---}
evidence is here ^ -----------------------( no evidence )----

Within the square brackets of science, there is no evidence. Within the curly brackets of philosophy and metaphysics, there is some evidence. Being outside the square brackets, this evidence naturally is not convincing to scientists. You and I live inside the square brackets, so to us there is no evidence. The reason I bring up philosophy and metaphysics is to say that there ARE people who live outside the square brackets, and to these people there IS evidence, but that evidence points to God, not to atheism. As a scientist, I like to have a positive control. As such, I am tired of seeing NO EVIDENCE everywhere because it raises the question of whether I even know what evidence is when I see it. So I am stepping back far enough to see where there IS evidence, and explaining why that evidence doesn't apply to me. The reason is because it is outside the bounds of the physical sciences. I don't live outside those bounds, but I don't begrudge people who do. Just as long as they don't insist that I join them out there. Because "do unto others etc," I won't tell them what brackets to live in, because I don't want them telling me what brackets to live in. Do you?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I insist that people defend ideas which are foolish or demonstrably incorrect and I certainly don't do so by stating that I am making any demands of anyone. If you believe something I consider stupid, I'm going to tell you and as best I can explain why its stupid. If you can't counter my assertion then why wouldn't you agree with me?
It's not that what you're saying is stupid necessarily, it's simply audacious, rigid, and elitist. For example, you insist the concepts of faith are demonstrably incorrect while acknowledging that science can demonstrate no such thing. You conclude the following of those reporting how they came to faith; "because I want to", "because the alternative seems worse to me", "because I just do", "because it gives me comfort" and I think there was a "because I was brought up to believe", when there were actually much more meaningful responses given. These reasons included reason, logic, the cognitive senses, and yes even science.

Based on this thread, I could as easily reduce atheism to "because I want to", "I was angry at God" (most interesting of course), "I don't like enter religion here", or "the alternative is much worse". Some have tried to suggest that it was through logic, reason, and the cognitive senses that they've chosen atheism, but they've yet to demonstrate how or why these traits are exclusive to them that they should be qualified to indicate this lacking in one of faith. Some of the statements from atheists not only ring hollow to me, but their "logic" strikes me as an inferiority complex in disguise or worse; an authority problem looking for peace and happiness to squelch.

Is there a god?

(Popular) Answers in order of likelihood that they are correct:

1. No. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that god exists.
i.e. You've simply not interpreted any data as evidence that would support the ideal of an intelligent agency because the possibility is unthinkable to you.

2. Yes. The wonder of the observable universe combined with gaps in our knowledge and ability to comprehend implies that there is a greater intelligence at work.
IMO, this is a simpleton breakdown of this argument. Not only is the observable universe "wondrous", but incredibly complex and precise. You may see chaos, but that doesn't mean all evidence suggests chaos. You may even acknowledge precision, but attribute it to natural mechanisms not yet established by the sciences. Is God of the gaps less useful than Gap of the gaps?

3. Yes. Holy text(s) and various disciples, profits and believers provide evidence that xxxx established religion is the one true religion.
I've personally never been fond of this line of reasoning. It may be a line of reasoning for religion, but does not address the question of whether or not there is an intelligent agent, deity, or god.

I can't quantify the un/certainty absolutely but I can do so relatively.
You keep asserting that it is illogical to draw conclusion number one rather than just refusing to draw a conclusion. If option 3 were to turn out to be true and you had gone with one of the other options or the wrong established religion or refused to decide either way, then you might be living your life all wrong and the one true deity might decide to punish you when you die. If not before.
If option 1 or 2 turn out to be true and you had been following an established religion, you would might have wasted a lot of time, energy and/or money following your choice of religion and even worse you might have encouraged or taught others to wrongly do the same with their short time on Earth.
This is why there is a perfectly argument for making a decision one way or the other rather than just deciding not to bother making your mind up at all.
But what is the problem with any of this if it has brought purpose and meaning to one's life or a shared joy of peace and happiness to others? Why would this be a waste? It's not like we're going to answer the origin of matter within our lifetime, that time is of the essence here and that we must necessarily be in a hurry to arrive at a conclusion. This is just hasty and unnecessary IMO.

Would your lifestyle be entirely different if you did believe in God?
ebuddy
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:43 PM
 
Lets add a 4th option to my previous 3 differentiating between 'more typical' mainstream established religion and 'extremist' literal translations of established mainstream religion.

This option 4 extremism is the bit I consider demonstrably false. Arguing for ID and/or against evolution falls into this category.
Option 3 is then simply scientifically unsound since the evidence is either entirely personal in nature or relies on a limited number of texts written by men. I do not consider holy books or spiritual experiences to be scientifically valid evidence for religion/god. Some of this also applies to option 2. I cannot claim that I can disprove it (at least not all of it) but then much of it is deliberately constructed or subsequently reinterpreted to achieve precisely that.

My preference for option 1 is because it does not require any evidence to support it. In fact it requires that there be no evidence. Its the only option for which that can be said. Option 3 and 4 certainly require some evidence, but option 2 does not and hence remains a scientific possibility.

That extra line about requiring that there be no evidence could be interpreted as evidence. It is what makes me rank option 1 above option 2 in terms of likelihood. Perhaps it should only be slightly above, but above nonetheless.
We could introduce yet another option. An intelligent life form creates our universe by accident by kicking off a black hole. I would consider this option to be more likely than the supernatural deity from option 2 since it more closely resembles things we have already observed or determined. This option may also require that there be no evidence of god which would rank it equal to option 1 in terms of likelihood. The debate with this one would be whether or not said life form could be considered a god or not.

Both a coin toss and the assertion that there is insufficient evidence or any point in answering are correct if you reduce the answer to a simple yes or no but if you introduce just a few variables which are necessary to try and cover different definitions of god, then it ceases to be that simple.
My version with more than two options is not the same as a coin toss. You need a rigid definition of god and a yes/no answer for a real 50-50 coin toss to apply.

The yes/no version will always be a fruitless exercise since man will always be able to invent interpretations to allow for either of both when this simplified. My multi-option version is more tailored to the real world (as requested).
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2011, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
But what is the problem with any of this if it has brought purpose and meaning to one's life or a shared joy of peace and happiness to others? Why would this be a waste? It's not like we're going to answer the origin of matter within our lifetime, that time is of the essence here and that we must necessarily be in a hurry to arrive at a conclusion. This is just hasty and unnecessary IMO.
If religious teachings brought something positive to lives and that was all I wouldn't have a problem at all but religious organisations stick their noses into politics and law making and worst of all education and research.
Besides that you can't deny that there are many religious organisations that one way or another foster distrust of other religions or races, homophobia etc etc.

If everyone was raised in a genuinely unbiased manner (I am aware that atheist parents can be just as biased as religious ones) and then allowed to make their own mind up when they were old enough to do so then surely if god exists, most people would find him by themselves?



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Would your lifestyle be entirely different if you did believe in God?
Any change in lifestyle would depend on which god I believed in. In simple terms it might just mean that I had to go to church once a week.
You may think it trivial but I'd be quite annoyed if I spent 100+ hours a year in church only to find it was all for nothing or worse it might count against me if I was worshipping the 'wrong' god.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 01:04 AM
 
People want to believe in things so badly. It's a nice distraction away from our reality of being tiny pieces of chemical sludge on a spinning globe.

We simply create and are reality. It doesn't mean that what we see and experience is true outside our realm of understanding.

I remember that Star Trek episode about a ream of energy the crew came across. It was able to figure out their language and communicate with them. Then, I've seen some interesting "Alien" footage of reams of energy in space in leaked Nasa films.

I think we're so disgustingly primitive that we're hopelessly naive and stupid, that's why we believe in things like "heaven" and stuff. Mere fairytales that end up being psychological protection mechanisms for people as they get older. As the nihilism creeps in.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If religious teachings brought something positive to lives and that was all I wouldn't have a problem at all but religious organisations stick their noses into politics and law making and worst of all education and research.
Here you use a criteria for distaste of religion, acknowledge below that atheism is equally capable of the criteria you've used for distaste of religion, and then return to your distaste for religion. Why the selective negativity? It seems your beef is with human nature, why are you only taking it out on one sect of it?

Not to speak for Uncle Skeleton, but I think this was the ideal he was trying to back you into. At the end of the day, the problem you have with religion is that its adherents chose the faith on little more than "because I wanted to" when in reality this seems to be the case for atheists as well, illustrated best by your responses to him.

Besides that you can't deny that there are many religious organisations that one way or another foster distrust of other religions or races, homophobia etc etc.
Of course I couldn't deny this any more than you could deny the track record of secular authorities which have proven just as capable of isolating a segment of people for distrust, phobias, oppression, and even violence.

If everyone was raised in a genuinely unbiased manner (I am aware that atheist parents can be just as biased as religious ones) and then allowed to make their own mind up when they were old enough to do so then surely if god exists, most people would find him by themselves?
Fine with the exception that this seems to be outside the realm of reality for human nature regardless of the philosophy behind its agenda.

Any change in lifestyle would depend on which god I believed in. In simple terms it might just mean that I had to go to church once a week.
You may think it trivial but I'd be quite annoyed if I spent 100+ hours a year in church only to find it was all for nothing or worse it might count against me if I was worshipping the 'wrong' god.
In terms of worshipping the "wrong god" - I don't judge one's salvation and I think any Christian ought to be very careful in so-doing as this is not the "good news" or the "reason for the joy that is inside you".

The only way 100+ hours a year in church would be "all for nothing" is if you did nothing while sitting there or nothing with what you've gotten from it; just as any other discipline you might spend 100+ hours per year engaging.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Lets add a 4th option to my previous 3 differentiating between 'more typical' mainstream established religion and 'extremist' literal translations of established mainstream religion.
It doesn't matter how many more you add, the problem with your process is where you choose the first option just because it's first, but you never address what makes it first. The number of non-first options is irrelevant.

My preference for option 1 is because it does not require any evidence to support it. In fact it requires that there be no evidence. Its the only option for which that can be said. Option 3 and 4 certainly require some evidence, but option 2 does not and hence remains a scientific possibility.

That extra line about requiring that there be no evidence could be interpreted as evidence.
As long as there is no evidence, all options remain a possibility. That is true by definition. A conclusion that strings exist (string theory) would require evidence, in just the same way that you claim a theory that God exists would require evidence. But what happens when no evidence is found of string theory? Do we conclude that it must not be true? No, where would that get anyone. What it means is that both answers are still possible, because that's what no evidence means, both/all possibilities are still open. Indeed, all the hypothetical math papers you like so much still flow out, building on the assumption that string theory is correct, even though it's still hypothetical as there is no evidence.

The absence of evidence is not evidence. The absence of evidence for a "missing link" (whatever the current required missing link is that day) is not evidence that there is no missing link. The absence of evidence for RNA world or abiogenesis is not evidence that there was no abiogenesis. The absence of evidence for string theory is not evidence for the falsehood of string theory. And the absence of evidence for God is not evidence for the falsehood of God.

Both a coin toss and the assertion that there is insufficient evidence or any point in answering are correct if you reduce the answer to a simple yes or no but if you introduce just a few variables which are necessary to try and cover different definitions of god, then it ceases to be that simple.
My version with more than two options is not the same as a coin toss. You need a rigid definition of god and a yes/no answer for a real 50-50 coin toss to apply.

The yes/no version will always be a fruitless exercise since man will always be able to invent interpretations to allow for either of both when this simplified. My multi-option version is more tailored to the real world (as requested).
Seriously? Ok then it's a dice roll



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not to speak for Uncle Skeleton, but I think this was the ideal he was trying to back you into. At the end of the day, the problem you have with religion is that its adherents chose the faith on little more than "because I wanted to" when in reality this seems to be the case for atheists as well, illustrated best by your responses to him.
Yeah, pretty much. Since you're being negative not positive (@wara), picking sides without being able to justify your decision is wrong (not just morally but logically). Hasty picking when you're being positive is fine, obviously, even in the most extreme example, like calling a dice throw, you can't win if you don't play, so even picking completely randomly is still the most logical strategy over the absolute truth (which is "I don't know"). But there is no reason you have to pick sides to attack someone over; there is no "can't win if you don't play" for the realm of criticism. Unlike the dice throw scenario, in criticism abstention actually can make you a winner, and there's nothing to win by guessing the right answer purely by luck.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It doesn't matter how many more you add, the problem with your process is where you choose the first option just because it's first, but you never address what makes it first. The number of non-first options is irrelevant.


As long as there is no evidence, all options remain a possibility. That is true by definition. A conclusion that strings exist (string theory) would require evidence, in just the same way that you claim a theory that God exists would require evidence. But what happens when no evidence is found of string theory? Do we conclude that it must not be true? No, where would that get anyone. What it means is that both answers are still possible, because that's what no evidence means, both/all possibilities are still open. Indeed, all the hypothetical math papers you like so much still flow out, building on the assumption that string theory is correct, even though it's still hypothetical as there is no evidence.

The absence of evidence is not evidence. The absence of evidence for a "missing link" (whatever the current required missing link is that day) is not evidence that there is no missing link. The absence of evidence for RNA world or abiogenesis is not evidence that there was no abiogenesis. The absence of evidence for string theory is not evidence for the falsehood of string theory. And the absence of evidence for God is not evidence for the falsehood of God.

Seriously? Ok then it's a dice roll

Yeah, pretty much. Since you're being negative not positive (@wara), picking sides without being able to justify your decision is wrong (not just morally but logically). Hasty picking when you're being positive is fine, obviously, even in the most extreme example, like calling a dice throw, you can't win if you don't play, so even picking completely randomly is still the most logical strategy over the absolute truth (which is "I don't know"). But there is no reason you have to pick sides to attack someone over; there is no "can't win if you don't play" for the realm of criticism. Unlike the dice throw scenario, in criticism abstention actually can make you a winner, and there's nothing to win by guessing the right answer purely by luck.
I don't think most people deny the possibility of a God, even atheists. But God is open to interpretation. I think more "non-believers" do not subscribe to the possibility of a God with anthropomorphic qualities like the Christian God. Then we go back to ancient Greece with Greek Gods like Zeus...

Things start getting complicated and even absurd with these things. And when people devote their whole lives to believing in something, and trying to recruit other people into their religious way of life, problems arise.

It's one thing to sit around and study mathematical theory, but quite another to be a religious proponent, trying to change laws because they're not consistent with your faith, and so forth.

The point is that religion/belief have no place in politics. We want objectivity and science. Period.

Arguing like you are about "possibility" shows that well, you just like to argue. Nobody loses sleep over the fact that it's possible the floor won't be there when you wake up. Or you'll drop off the side of the Earth because it's possible it'll suddenly go flat. Everything is possible. What we're interested in is correlations. And that's science.

Here's a "nuff said" image on this whole matter:

     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
I don't think most people deny the possibility of a God, even atheists.
Please insert Orson Welles capping gif here.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As long as there is no evidence, all options remain a possibility.
But not necessarily an equally probable possibility. You already disregarded my Smurf theory.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The absence of evidence is not evidence.
Actually it can be. If you were in the woods and you saw bear scat, you'd conclude that a bear might still be nearby. Do you make this conclusion when you walk from one shop to another on 5th Avenue in NY?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Seriously? Ok then it's a dice roll
Again, dice rolls have equally likely outcomes. Bears are more common in the canadian woods than they are in Central Park.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yeah, pretty much. Since you're being negative not positive (@wara), picking sides without being able to justify your decision is wrong (not just morally but logically).
You don't like my justifications. You have yet to offer anything to show convincingly that they are flawed, you just keep restating your arguments. I am saying that not all solutions to this question are equally likely and I have chosen what I deem to be the most likely solution as the one I prefer to work with. You don't have to like it, or agree with it but you have yet to show how the Smurf theory is just as likely to be correct as atheism which like it or not is what you are contending.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Here you use a criteria for distaste of religion, acknowledge below that atheism is equally capable of the criteria you've used for distaste of religion, and then return to your distaste for religion. Why the selective negativity? It seems your beef is with human nature, why are you only taking it out on one sect of it?
You and I have had this argument before and we differ so lets not go into it again in depth. You've stated your position:

'Religion is good for people and society, the godless are more likely to be immoral and commit mass murder'

My position remains:

'Religion is responsible for more violence and murder than anything else in history. Atheists don't behave immorally because of their atheism.'

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not to speak for Uncle Skeleton, but I think this was the ideal he was trying to back you into. At the end of the day, the problem you have with religion is that its adherents chose the faith on little more than "because I wanted to" when in reality this seems to be the case for atheists as well, illustrated best by your responses to him.
It seems this way to you and maybe to Uncle S because you don't seem to follow the trail of logic to the same conclusions I have. You both seem to think I'm biased because I don't agree with either of you.

There is no way I can state my position on this kind of thing without sounding arrogant and insulting. I'm not afraid to do this of course but I don't want to do it in this thread which aside from Skeletons' near trolling throughout has been a notch or two above the usual religious debates we hold. Those ones which seem to be the root of Skeletons poor opinions of me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The only way 100+ hours a year in church would be "all for nothing" is if you did nothing while sitting there or nothing with what you've gotten from it; just as any other discipline you might spend 100+ hours per year engaging.
Not really. What if the one true god is more like the spiteful version from the old testament only he considered church worship to be the ultimate sin if you didn't wear a purple panama hat throughout every service? Then the time spent would be less than worthless, it would be detrimental.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
I don't think most people deny the possibility of a God, even atheists. But God is open to interpretation. I think more "non-believers" do not subscribe to the possibility of a God with anthropomorphic qualities like the Christian God. Then we go back to ancient Greece with Greek Gods like Zeus...

Things start getting complicated and even absurd with these things. And when people devote their whole lives to believing in something, and trying to recruit other people into their religious way of life, problems arise.

It's one thing to sit around and study mathematical theory, but quite another to be a religious proponent, trying to change laws because they're not consistent with your faith, and so forth.

The point is that religion/belief have no place in politics. We want objectivity and science. Period.

Arguing like you are about "possibility" shows that well, you just like to argue. Nobody loses sleep over the fact that it's possible the floor won't be there when you wake up. Or you'll drop off the side of the Earth because it's possible it'll suddenly go flat. Everything is possible. What we're interested in is correlations. And that's science.

Here's a "nuff said" image on this whole matter:



My biggest hope is that religion can be eradicated from politics, legislation and education rather than eradicated altogether, but realistically I don't see that happening unless everyone can be persuaded to give it up altogether. This can only be done through education which is why religions are so keen to have a say in educational policy: Self preservation.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 04:25 PM
 
This has inspired to be more involved in politics.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 04:41 PM
 
As far as im concerned Religion should be banned for the same reason cults are. The only difference between the 2 is age. Religion severed its purpose thousands of years ago but today is just a legacy of ignorance in a time of ignorance.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Where did you come to the conclusion in the sentence I bolded in you post?
I was camping since thursday and did not have the time to reply to this...

Basically, it boils down that I perceive the Catholic/Christian god as being given human emotions. Vengeance, hate, love, etc. I find it dubious that an omnipotent creator would insist on rules for me to live by, with the motivation being my damnation to a bad place for so little as unrepentant premarital sex, or even stealing a car or what have-you.

Now Jesus, there was a man who didn't say anything of the sort (as el chupacabra replied to me much earlier).

I guess the concept of heaven and hell (reward and retribution) reeks of something a human would come up with.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
This has inspired to be more involved in politics.
God bless you!
ebuddy
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I was camping since thursday and did not have the time to reply to this...

Basically, it boils down that I perceive the Catholic/Christian god as being given human emotions. Vengeance, hate, love, etc. I find it dubious that an omnipotent creator would insist on rules for me to live by, with the motivation being my damnation to a bad place for so little as unrepentant premarital sex, or even stealing a car or what have-you.

Now Jesus, there was a man who didn't say anything of the sort (as el chupacabra replied to me much earlier).

I guess the concept of heaven and hell (reward and retribution) reeks of something a human would come up with.
In simpler terms, you came up with it yourself?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 07:59 PM
 
The notion of heaven and hell was used as a control system in a lawless time. It was good practice not to engage in premarital sex and to union for life with some one as a form of disease control. Like the notion of not eating hoofed animals and a few like rabbits in Leviticus 11 was good practice because they eat there own crap and it was thought of as unclean which is why most of these animals require special handling and cooking to be safe. Back then was good to avoid them today with modern cooking knowledge and safety standards its not a problem. Almost everything in the bible was a moral guide on how to live and stay safe in a very dangerous time most of which has been replaced by modern law, standards and regulations backed by science. The notion of God, heaven and hell was invented as a power control method for uneducated, and ignorant people. When I say ignorant I mean before science and knowledge. The bible and religion has been replaced yet its notions are so dam powerful it still clings to a large portion of the population like a virus, its impossible to eradicate. Unfortunately "ideas" once born never disappear. The idea of god, heaven and hell will be with human kind I fear for another 1000 years.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You and I have had this argument before and we differ so lets not go into it again in depth. You've stated your position:

'Religion is good for people and society, the godless are more likely to be immoral and commit mass murder'
Could you cite for me where this was my conclusion? This could explain why we're having to rehash the same discussion. I do not believe atheists are more capable of being immoral or commit mass murder. I blame human nature for its ills, not this specific philosophy or that philosophy. In most cases, the acts committed by human nature can be found in stark contrast to the philosophies they claim to revere. The problem I have here is the apparent theophobia. If Christians must endure indictments of murder committed in their God's name, Atheists must endure indictments of murder committed under the guise of intolerance for religion, inextricably linked with Marxism and Communism. I mean... fair is fair right? This shouldn't be a problem unless you're in absolute denial of history which, of course, flies in the face of anyone claiming to appreciate empirical evidence.

My position remains:

'Religion is responsible for more violence and murder than anything else in history. Atheists don't behave immorally because of their atheism.'
You can claim religion is the opium of the masses for example and not commit mass murder just as you can claim the righteousness of the Christian faith without launching a crusade. Unfortunately for both, the lines blurred and human nature justified atrocity for an agenda. Every good little dictator needs an enemy. If the agenda is domestic, the enemy is domestic. If the agenda is foreign, the enemy is foreign. There is a difference between winning hearts and minds and stealing them at gunpoint. If the message isn't effective enough, gunpoint might be necessary.

It seems this way to you and maybe to Uncle S because you don't seem to follow the trail of logic to the same conclusions I have. You both seem to think I'm biased because I don't agree with either of you.
I realize we immediately don't agree on theological matters and I'm okay with that if you are. I'm reaching out to you in a much more pragmatic manner on fundamentals I would think we could enjoy common ground. For what it's worth, it's not your conclusion I take issue with Waragainstsleep, it's how you choose to use it.

There is no way I can state my position on this kind of thing without sounding arrogant and insulting. I'm not afraid to do this of course but I don't want to do it in this thread which aside from Skeletons' near trolling throughout has been a notch or two above the usual religious debates we hold. Those ones which seem to be the root of Skeletons poor opinions of me.
While I might not be a warrior or even an evangelist for the Christian faith, you and others here have forced me to recognize a phobia of another kind and I'm compelled to address it. This sometimes includes correcting revisionists hoping empirical evidence really is the basis of their views. What Skeleton appears to be doing is attempting to hold a mirror for you, not so that he can understand where you're coming from, but so that you can. It actually has nothing to do with the perceived truth or conclusion at the end of the process, but the process itself and the manner in which the conclusion is expressed. Having been on the other side of many discussions with Uncle Skeleton I can appreciate your frustration, but I don't think it's reasonable to call it trolling and there's no reason to take it personally. Unless your position is indefensible of course.

Not really. What if the one true god is more like the spiteful version from the old testament only he considered church worship to be the ultimate sin if you didn't wear a purple panama hat throughout every service? Then the time spent would be less than worthless, it would be detrimental.
Well then all of human kind is burdened with the same possibilities. If one wishes to consume themselves with spiteful gods that define ultimate sin and condemn law-breakers to fiery damnation, you certainly shouldn't have to worry about their success in recruiting right? Maybe you're missing something. EIther way, it is not your conclusion that matters to me, it's what you choose to do with it.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Here's a "nuff said" image on this whole matter:
This only establishes how myopic atheist zealots have become that empirical evidence is given such little regard. Your illustration might be pithy enough for the short attention span, but the truth is that the very discipline of science was ushered in by those of faith wanting to know more of God by studying His Creation. There is no less intellectual integrity among the faithful than there is among the godless.

To pit the two disciplines against one another in this way is either socially inept or dangerously stupid.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 09:21 PM
 
BTW where did God come from. I mean who made god? God's god?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
BTW where did God come from. I mean who made god? God's god?
Where did matter come from? Has it just always been?

I mean these are some really deep questions no doubt and there are countless many, why so curious about God?
ebuddy
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Where did matter come from? Has it just always been?

I mean these are some really deep questions no doubt and there are countless many, why so curious about God?
Because the religious seem to take Gods origin as self evident were science makes no claims as to the origin of the the universe.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Because the religious seem to take Gods origin as self evident were science makes no claims as to the origin of the the universe.
You have to study a scene before you can lean more of what's behind it. Whether you call it "universe" or "creation" is of no consequence and does not necessarily retard scientific inquiry for either presupposition.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Where did matter come from? Has it just always been?

I mean these are some really deep questions no doubt and there are countless many, why so curious about God?
Ins't matter just a theory of matter?

I would be willing to bet that if the Bible had said clearly the earth is flat, that even today many people would believe it just because it was written. I am really curious as to who started the bible, putting the stories together and for what purpose, I mean the real person the real reasons. Who was the authors or author.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
2. Be as cool to others as you want them to be cool to you.
Unless that other is named besson3c, evidently?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Where did matter come from? Has it just always been?

I mean these are some really deep questions no doubt and there are countless many, why so curious about God?

Because we know where Jesus came from, he was born in a manager on Christmas day, surrounded by the three wise men and some sheep.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 10:32 PM
 
Ok so the first 5 books are basically Jewish in the first place which is interesting. And most likely written by Moses himself. Now let me get this straight, a man, a human being writes a series of books and only in 1250ish BC. So even before Christ during a time of very little knowledge writes a story. And for thousands of years people have followed this story as if it was the words of god only being able to take his word for it. We have people that talk to god every day now. They end up in mental institutions or on drugs but why are they not respected as such. Think mental disorders is a new thing. For all we know Moses had a disorder and herd voices in his head. Ok so what if it was Joshua who added into it his death since the mosaic books contain his own death. That would be the first editing of a non god inspired author? And what about all the doublets like Gen 1 and Gen 2 or the three different stories for patriarch traveling among the pagans. And of course as the book as been re-written over and over we don't even know what the original says. Each edition edited to suite the kings or the churches of the day to grow upon the power of control. And considering the evidence of multiple authors through analysis of grammar and style I have to ask this one question. HOW CAN YOU PUT SO MUCH FAITH INTO A MAN MADE BOOK. I see it as no different then taking the Star Trek encyclopedia and putting all my faith into that as if it was real. Who knows in 2000 years from now after we have destroyed ourselves gone through another 1000 years of dark ages people in the future will see the Star Trek universe as our past to explain everything.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
In simpler terms, you came up with it yourself?
No idea what you're driving at.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Unless that other is named besson3c, evidently?
Awww... someone's feeling a bit insecure....

If I acted as immature and stupid as you often do, I would expect you to treat me the same way I treat you. I wouldn't want to be coddled or approved of. If my behavior was as inappropriate as yours, I hope someone would stop me. You should be thanking me for my interventions.

So, my original statement still stands.
( Last edited by Railroader; Aug 7, 2011 at 11:21 PM. )
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
No idea what you're driving at.
You just made it up. You are effectively taking the place of God by defining what a God should do or not do. How could you possibly understand a being of omnipotence without a revelation from that being?
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
You just made it up. You are effectively taking the place of God by defining what a God should do or not do. How could you possibly understand a being of omnipotence without a revelation from that being?
Yes, I used my own brain to come up with a conclusion that does not fit your belief system. This is what the thread is about.

The only way I can disbelieve in the christian portrayal of god is to.....what exactly, believe in him? Your logic is circular, and is based on your faith in the Christian religion. I do not consider any religion on Earth to be more 'correct' than others, I believe everyone worships the same god and men have developed the rest.

If what I have come to believe on my own isn't valid to you, then I don't think we are going to have much to discuss.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Awww... someone's feeling a bit insecure....

If I acted as immature and stupid as you often do, I would expect you to treat me the same way I treat you. I wouldn't want to be coddled or approved of. If my behavior was as inappropriate as yours, I hope someone would stop me. You should be thanking me for my interventions.

So, my original statement still stands.

So your version of the golden rule is to treat other people the way you want to be treated, unless you think that they need to learn something, in which case it is appropriate to discard the entire rule and act like a complete dick?

Gotcha!
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Yes, I used my own brain to come up with a conclusion that does not fit your belief system. This is what the thread is about.

The only way I can disbelieve in the christian portrayal of god is to.....what exactly, believe in him? Your logic is circular, and is based on your faith in the Christian religion. I do not consider any religion on Earth to be more 'correct' than others, I believe everyone worships the same god and men have developed the rest.

If what I have come to believe on my own isn't valid to you, then I don't think we are going to have much to discuss.
Circular logic is believing what ever you want to believe because that is what you believe.

I didn't say it wasn't valid. But making up your own beliefs about something with little more than you feelings seems a bit shallow to me.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2011, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So your version of the golden rule is to treat other people the way you want to be treated, unless you think that they need to learn something, in which case it is appropriate to discard the entire rule and act like a complete dick?

Gotcha!
Nope, you don't get it. Oh well.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
But not necessarily an equally probable possibility. You already disregarded my Smurf theory.
Because we have evidence about Smurfs. We know that Smurfs were invented by Pierre Culliford in 1958, and we know that his inspiration was amusement, not genuine belief. These things constitute evidence.

Actually it can be. If you were in the woods and you saw bear scat, you'd conclude that a bear might still be nearby. Do you make this conclusion when you walk from one shop to another on 5th Avenue in NY?
If not for decades of evidence about the usual inhabitants of Manhattan, and if not for the dung (itself more evidence), yes yes you would.

Again, dice rolls have equally likely outcomes. Bears are more common in the canadian woods than they are in Central Park.
You only know that because of evidence about bears and cities.

You don't like my justifications. You have yet to offer anything to show convincingly that they are flawed, you just keep restating your arguments. I am saying that not all solutions to this question are equally likely and I have chosen what I deem to be the most likely solution as the one I prefer to work with. You don't have to like it, or agree with it but you have yet to show how the Smurf theory is just as likely to be correct as atheism which like it or not is what you are contending.
If there were NO EVIDENCE, then the Smurf theory would be just as likely as atheism. However, there is evidence against the Smurf theory.

Of course, even so the evidence might be misleading... you might not want to dismiss the smurf theory so casually
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 01:55 AM
 
Beliefs. Ahhh, beliefs.

I believe I can walk off this 20 story building and God will float me down safely to the ground. Should I step off and fall?

I believe I will fall to my death based on empirical evidence. Because I don't want to die, should I not step off?

Belief in something like religion is akin to the first scenerio. Regardless of empirical evidence to the contrary, people cling to x belief. So step off the ledge and see if God will save you.

Other examples. The preacher who predicted the world would end, but it didn't.

The people who believe the world is only 6000 and change years old, despite strong evidence that it's much, much older. And so forth.

Hey, I believe my mother will survive 10 years longer without taking arimidex. How do I know? Gold told me.

I'm all for faith and spirituality, but there's a line that must be drawn.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Nope, you don't get it. Oh well.

The golden rule is really not all that complex you know.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2011, 06:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Ins't matter just a theory of matter?

I would be willing to bet that if the Bible had said clearly the earth is flat, that even today many people would believe it just because it was written. I am really curious as to who started the bible, putting the stories together and for what purpose, I mean the real person the real reasons. Who was the authors or author.
People started the Bible based on what they felt was a Divine Inspiration to write it. There are many authors and the real reason was to drive you crazy with questions about it. Already bored with science Athens?
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,